Topic: Should protective motorcycle clothing be made mandatory?

[Bob Wessner]

Who's Bill?  Just kidding. As long as it doesn't become a political squabble...

[Terry in Australia]

Sorry mate, I've gotta give up drinking at work!

[mick7504]

Sorry mate, I've gotta give up drinking at work!

Yeah, But then it's not fun anymore mate. 

[petercb750]

Terry, it's an interesting question isn't it.
Personally, I never go out riding without protective gear. I just don't feel comfortable in t-shirt, sneekers etc - I always wear jacket (leather or dri-rider, both with armour), boots, gloves, full face and sometimes dri rider pants - but am investing in draggin jeans or similar before summer after years of only wearing normal jeans (without too many scrapes luckily).
To make it compulsory is a big call, but I can see where they are coming from. Good protective gear "should" help reduce injuries of some kinds, and therefore "should" ease the strain to some degree on the health system - I say "should", there's always going to be the cases of no matter what you wear you're going to hurt yourself. But by wearing the "proper" gear you give yourself a better chance of coming through an incident slightly less damaged, especially just slides.
You see some total nuff nuffs, imo, wearing gear that is good only for the beach and I just shakes me head - they obviously have never had an off dressed like that - they wouldn't be doing it again if they had.
Years ago, a bloke I knew went 2 blocks from his house to the beach on a Z650 dressed in t-shirt and shorts - once they pulled him out from under a taxi at the first intersection he spent the next month in hospital lying on his stomach cos his back was raw. He wore gear after that.
Not that long ago a bloke I knew indirectly was in a toy run with his chicky on the back, showing off (as they do on those runs) mono-ing past the line of bikes at warp speed, hit another bike, crashed, and she never played the piano again - no gloves = no palms left.
Perhaps the move should be to ban "innappropriate" gear, but then who decides that. Interesting.
But to answer your question - I say yes, cos it won't effect me, but might save someone from some pain, and after an off they might just get up, dust themselves off, and say "thank f*ck they made me wear this gear".
Peter.

[Terry in Australia]

G'Day Pete, how are you mate? I thought about Draggin jeans too, but instead I bought a pair of leather jeans with Kevlar inserts instead. (and at 99 bucks, they were a bargain!) The bloke who was selling them made a good paint, in that, denim is only good for around 1-2 seconds as you're sliding down the road, and if it's all that's holding the kevlar in place, you're still in trouble. leather lasts considerably longer, and the benefit is that it's less likely that you'll have to buy a new pair after a crash. Cheers, Terry.

[ferroussphinx]

i think that with all the #$%* happening in my part of the world




the one thing i worry about the most is getting hit by a cop at a stop light


happened to a group of people in indy they were stopped at a stop light and the cop was drunk on his way to a 911 call hit the motorcyclist     my heart goes out to the family lots going on in 2010

[petercb750]

G'Day Pete, how are you mate? I thought about Draggin jeans too, but instead I bought a pair of leather jeans with Kevlar inserts instead. (and at 99 bucks, they were a bargain!) The bloke who was selling them made a good paint, in that, denim is only good for around 1-2 seconds as you're sliding down the road, and if it's all that's holding the kevlar in place, you're still in trouble. leather lasts considerably longer, and the benefit is that it's less likely that you'll have to buy a new pair after a crash. Cheers, Terry.

Mate, at the speeds I go these days 1 -2 seconds slide is all I'd get! In fact, I'd be proud of it haha. But those leather with kevlar sound interesting (Assuming they are not the ones with the arse cut out, hehe) - do you have any contact details for them? They are heaps cheaper than draggin.
Off to motogp tomorrow, and surprisingly you can pick a bit of a bargain at some of the trade stands, so will be looking around for good jean/pants options. And I'm sure there'll be some scantily clad big breasted nymph who will help me try them on - actually come to think of it, just helping me pull off my old ones will do 

[Terry in Australia]

Ha ha, well done mate, I might pass you on the road going in the opposite direction, I'm down that way now. I'll try to find the seller of the jeans and PM you with his details, he's a nice bloke and the jeans are top notch, 1.2mm thick cowhide, and they're not hemmed at the bottom of the legs, which is good, you can just cut them at whatever length suits you. At 6'4" I've got pretty long legs and I hate showing a bit of bare lower leg when sitting on my bike (particularly in the rain) so I'll get them hemmed a tad longer than I'd normally have my jeans legs done. I'm tempted to buy some draggin jeans for summer though, leather duds on a 45 degree C day aren't much fun. Cheers, Terry.

[TwoTired]

 Should protective motorcycle clothing be made mandatory?
Yes, Yes, yes, of course.
Anything to extend the needed taxpayer contribution a few more years.
Buy why stop there?  In the interest of safety, all motorcycle apparel must be a standardized day-glow orange with reflective tape in a stripped pattern.  The PO-PO can then easily tell if the gear is "approved" as well as help other drivers with motorcycle visibility.   All helmets should have a revolving yellow beacon,  too.  Motorcycles must have large "crash bars" so leg injuries are eliminated when the bike falls over on the riders.  In fact, maybe a road side guard rail type would offer even more protection.   Almost certainly an on board speed governor so the the national speed limit can absolutely never be exceeded.  And, a remote engine cutoff that only the police can control.
Lets see, what else?  Maybe a roll cage?  How about one of those beep beep sounders that the trucks have for backing up.  Motorcycles should have these operating anytime they are in forward motion so non-riders won't be run over.

Can't ever be too safe, right?

In time, we can also mandate seat belts for ALL chairs.  Can't have the elderly falling off, breaking their hips, and making everybody pay for increased insurance premiums to cover unnecessary expenses.  In fact, beds should have mandated guard rails to reduce the injuries from accidentally rolling out of bed, too.  All sidewalks should have hand rails, just like stairs, in case of a stumble.  Just think of all those costly broken wrists and arms that could be avoided!

Taking the safety thing to it's logical conclusion, the ultimate cure is to simply ban all motorcycles, as that would have the most beneficial safety improvement, far better than making protective motorcycle clothing mandatory.  Just think of the injuries avoided and the cost savings in insurance claims, hospital and doctor bills, lost work hours/productivity, and the relief from pain and suffering by the loved ones spared the anguish of would be riders injured, maimed, and killed?

Yes, oh wonderous government, save us from ourselves, as we are unable to properly think for ourselves.

Cheers,
 

[Retro Rocket]

In fact, beds should have mandated guard rails to reduce the injuries from accidentally rolling out of bed,

The old men needn't worry, Viagra will fix that.....

Mick

[petercb750]

In fact, beds should have mandated guard rails to reduce the injuries from accidentally rolling out of bed,

The old men needn't worry, Viagra will fix that.....

Mick

oi!

[Terry in Australia]

Yes, oh wonderous government, save us from ourselves, as we are unable to properly think for ourselves.

And that's the problem Lloyd, there are too many people out there who are too dumb, or too smug, to think for themselves, so governments have to legislate to protect them from their own stupid selves.

Seat belts save lives, but before they were mandated people argued that the government was taking away their rights to decide whether they needed to wear them, helmets save lives but before they were mandated people argued that the government was taking away their rights to decide whether they needed to wear them, there are people in the world who are just so paranoid that they will argue against common sense.

You wear protective clothing, I wear protective clothing, anyone with half a brain wears protective clothing, but if anyone suggests that the government should make what you and I do as a matter of course mandatory, people will argue that the government was taking away their rights to be idiots.

Oh well, the road toll will continue to escalate until one day the government finally does ban motorcycles, and we'll all be the poorer for it. I think I'll sell all my bikes now before they become worthless and buy a Mustang.  

[mick7504]

Yes, oh wonderous government, save us from ourselves, as we are unable to properly think for ourselves.

I think I'll sell all my bikes now before they become worthless and buy a Mustang.  

Problem Solved.
Ken's got the answer. 

[Markcb750]

Yes, politics are verboten.  So I will make it a philosophical debate:
I say that man is not in charge of his fate, when your number is up it is up.  Regardless of what you wear.  In the meantime, carpe Diem!

This implies we have no choice in what we do, that personal decisions in ones life are no more in control of the outcome of that life then particles in an atom smasher...

Did I ride to Barber with Steven Hawkins?

Always, Illegitimi non carbonum.

[rhos1355]

Government cotton wooling and media drama queens??

Merda taurorum animas conturbit

[Bob Wessner]

Hmm, think I'll check with Glenn and see if we can get an auto-latin translator installed. 

[rhos1355]

Illegitimi non carbonum = Don't let the b*stards grind you down

Merda taurorum animas conturbit = Bullsh*t baffles the brains

[Markcb750]

si hoc legere scis nimium eruditiones habes

[Bob Wessner]

 

[ofreen]

Taking the safety thing to it's logical conclusion, the ultimate cure is to simply ban all motorcycles, as that would have the most beneficial safety improvement, far better than making protective motorcycle clothing mandatory. 

That is the logical conclusion to all this.  That's been my argument against helmet laws.  Every justification used to say helmets laws are necessary can be used to justify the banning of motorcycle riding.  People wear helmets and protective gear and still get squished like bugs.  The hazards of motorcycle riding are there no matter what you wear, and the safety nannies (AKA safety nazis) are well aware of it.  Give them the power to tell you what you can wear and you have given them the power to tell you that you can't ride at all.

[Gordon]

Until all pedestrians are required by law to wear full protective gear in the event that they step out into traffic or are struck in a crosswalk, no more laws should be made about what gear motorcycle riders are required to wear.  As a pedestrian walking along or across a public roadway you are at risk of being injured and becoming a burden to taxpayers and insurance consumers, and as such are subject to laws that will protect you from yourself and others when using said public roadways. 

I'm with Lloyd on this.  Maybe it should just be illegal to leave the safety of your own home, and all houses must be one level only so you can't fall down the stairs.  And no step ladders!  You may not take a shower standing up.  You may not plug in, unplug or turn on or off any electrical appliance without first submitting a formal request, receiving written approval after review by committee, and being in the presence of no less than three government board of electrical safety certified inspectors.  And don't even get me started on what will be required to open the front door to get the morning paper!  

[TwoTired]

Seat belts save lives, but before they were mandated people argued that the government was taking away their rights to decide whether they needed to wear them, helmets save lives but before they were mandated people argued that the government was taking away their rights to decide whether they needed to wear them, there are people in the world who are just so paranoid that they will argue against common sense.

The common sense argument varies from individual to individual.  What makes your particular brand of "common sense" more important than someone else's?

The point is.  If your desire is really to save lives and injury, then why don't you favor banning motorcycles?  Even with mandated protective gear, there will still be motorcycle related injuries/deaths that cost us all money and inconvenience.  The problem is completely and totally cured if motorcycles are no longer allowed to be operated, by both the people that can think for themselves and the ones who can't.  Society is saved.  Isn't this just common sense?

However, it does lead me to wonder what the next "life saving" step should be taken to protect the people from themselves.

Life IS risk.  Some people are better at managing risk than others, just as every individual can have a specific skill set superior to someone else.  Do we punish those that do have superior skill sets because some others don't have a particular skill?

I can safely fly an airplane.  There are many that can't.  There are some competent pilots that still have an accident, even if they were otherwise competent.  That is the nature of risk.  Just think of the lives and injuries saved if no one was allowed to fly?
Because some don't have the skill to fly a plane, should all be forced to stay on the ground?  Same can be said for trains, buses, cars, bicycles, boats, skate boards, etc.

I can't think of a single transportation method that does not involve some risk of injury.  If your true goal is to prevent injuries, they should all be banned.

However, if your goal is to incrementally assert ever greater control over other persons, force-ably bending them to your will, then the incremental step of forcing protective gear falls right in line with that goal.
The incremental march of ever increasing behavior and monetary restrictions, has but one goal in the end; a demoralized and hopeless populace base over which a select few/elite determines their fate.

If you wish to propagate freedom, you have to allow individuals to make their own choices, not restrict their choice to what a designated official allots the "inferiors" (also known as idiots, dumb, smug, etc.).

Do you enjoy having someone else make decisions on your behalf?  Does such a practice make you feel liberated or enslaved?
Now imagine an increase in the amount of decisions made for you on a daily basis.  At what point will you become unhappy?  For example: money can be saved/redirected by restricting your alcohol consumption and to the cheaper brands.  Who couldn't argue that it is just alcohol, and doesn't "common sense" require that less money be spent on it and diverted to little Johnny's education?

If you want a populace to learn how to make better choices, they have to be allowed to make choices and learn from them.  Practice makes perfect, right?
If they have ever less choices to make, they lose the skill to make the right choices.

Cheers,

[demon78]

And all cage drivers wear a 4 point belt with protective helmet and Nomex suit, then we'd hear the whining start, I think Terry and others that protective gear should be driven into the bikers heads (think about the situation at this time, think about situation in the future) so that they anticipate problems, ie if the truck/suv,car hits you you're screwed but if you're where they can't get to you easily the you wont be hit. I've done that for 50 years and the only accidents I've had were definitely my #$%* ups not some other drivers and when I get old enough not to be able to encompass that reality I'll stop with Bikes or see if I can get Mack stamped on my for head
Bill the demon.

[Bobtacker]

The older we get the more we appreciate pain and how to avoid it!!!

[FunJimmy]

I can say that I’m a proponent of helmet laws and the use of quality motorcycle safety gear, but legislation enforcing the use of specific jackets, pants, gloves of boots is going too far. Most motorcycle fatalities are attributed to head trauma and that’s what helmets are intended to mitigate.

Here in Canada, we have relaxed our helmet laws to excuse those who wear religious head wear from the helmet laws that the rest of the population must abide by, but if said rider suffers head trauma and our insurance company pays out millions in medical costs and compensation, we all suffer financially.

Some of you might remember the investigative report “Motorcycle Helmet Performance: Blowing the Lid Off“, in Motorcyclist magazine a couple years ago.  The conclusion regarding the applicability of test methods as it relates to motorcyclists was quite interesting. Maybe those turbans are safer than Snell approved helmets and we just don’t know it yet.

Would mandatory safety gear laws have a similar effect on our riding gear? It would certainly impose restrictions on the manufacturer and consumers, based on test methods that might not replicate real riding scenarios.   
 
How about the new and emerging air bag technology? Do we want the patent holder of that stuff lobbing your local government with the hopes of forcing us all down that road?

I hate to think that we are living in an overly restrictive society where people are not allowed to make informed choices regarding the amount of protection to wear or not wear.

My vote is for more education and PSA (public service announcements), and feature articles in the popular magazines. Tell us why smoking in bad for us and maybe we will stop.

Cheers
FJ