Topic: Should protective motorcycle clothing be made mandatory?

[mick7504]

His point was that he paid his taxes (including mandatory personal injury insurance) so if he came to grief and was badly injured, he'd suffer the consequences alone, and no-one should be able to tell him what he can, or can't wear.
What do you guys think? Cheers, Terry.

Mate
I reckon that this fella has a selfish view point.
If he wipes himself out in the nude or not in the nude, some poor bastard still has to scrape him up off the bitumen if he's good enough to do it properly.
And that poor bugga's more than likely has got a missus and kid/kids as well.
Kevin Bloody Wilson sings the song DILLIGAF. (Does It Look Like I Give A #$%*)
Here's part of the problem as I can see.
Mick

[andy750]

With protective clothing they mean:
a helmet ( approved)
a jacket ( should not be leather orso)
boots or good shoes
gloves

What about the legs? Dont they need protecting as well? Its usually the shin that gets snapped in two or road rash on the rear or hips. Which is why wearing chaps is so useless for any form of protection apart from against the wind. And what constitutes "good shoes" - steel top capped boots/shoes are usually the only thing that will save your feet and then you need heavy ankle/shin protection to stop your ankles snapping. Are shoes regulated the same way as helmets? Do they come with a certified safety label on them saying they will protect you in a crash?

I dont agree that you need to be regulated to dress properly for riding a bike. If you are unable to make the right choice for yourself and cant accept the risk then you should take the car or bus or train. And who cares what other riders wear. Wouldnt it be a boring world if we all did and wore the same thing?

 

[mystic_1]

Exactly my point andy750.  "Good shoes" is a subjective definition.  Who decides what is "good", the police officer?   Unless there's an objective standard laws like this would be difficult to enforce, if not downright unconstitutional (at least here in the US).

When you don't have protective clothing on and a car hits you and you're injured for live and can't move youre legs anymore, what are you going to say then???

A jacket and boots won't protect your spine when a car runs into you or when you hit a stationary object or the pavement.

Having said that, I agree that people who ride in shorts and t-shirts are idiots.  I'm always wearing jacket, jeans, boots, gloves, and helmet these days, even on very hot days.  I used to go without the helmet more often in my youth.

Still, legislating all of that would be difficult IMHO.

mystic_1

[HondanutRider]

It hasn't been mentioned; but, isn't eye protection required in most jurisdictions of the USA where helmets are an option?

[rhos1355]

A mate o' mine's 18 yr old kid brother slammed his nuts into his tank HARD during two separate accidents. My mate said when he went to visit his bro in hospital they were about the size of oranges and blue!! man we laughed like crazy when he was telling us the story. But a couple of months later the kid notices a lump on one of his testicles. Showed it to his doc and they removed it pronto. Fortunately it was benign and now he's the proud father of 2 (and counting) illegitimate children. So my question is; are we gonna expect the state to tell us how to cotton wool everything or are we gonna use our common sense?

[The_Crippler]

It hasn't been mentioned; but, isn't eye protection required in most jurisdictions of the USA where helmets are an option?

It is in the three states I've lived in.

[flybox1]

It hasn't been mentioned; but, isn't eye protection required in most jurisdictions of the USA where helmets are an option?

it is here.  if you've got your visor up, you better be wearing eye-prot.

i'd feel safer wearing a helmet and a t-shirt over this than some of the 'dress' i see HD riders wearing.
http://highvelocitygear.com/juggernaut.htm#lb4
...armored pants and over the ankle boots too of course.  even on hot days.
you have the choice (for now) to dress for the crash. 
natural selection will rule in the end for those who do not.

[sangyo soichiro]

I had an incident happen to me and a friend just this last Friday night that reminded me that cops are not above abusing their power.  I think we should be careful how much power we give them.  

[The_Crippler]

This is what I wear: http://www.joerocket.com/catalog/index.cfm/234/109/Leather_Jackets/Sonic_2.0_Jacket

[flybox1]

I had an incident happen to me and a friend just this last Friday night that reminded me that cops are not above abusing their power.

please, now, share with the group. 

[sangyo soichiro]

I had an incident happen to me and a friend just this last Friday night that reminded me that cops are not above abusing their power.

please, now, share with the group. 

I was with a friend I hadn't seen in about 20 years.  We went out drinking.  I live in town, so we could walk to all the places and weren't driving.

We have a couple pitchers at the bar, and then a pint at another bar.  Then we got a couple 6-packs and went down to the duck pond in town and just sat on a bench catching up on old times.  3:00 rolled around, so we neatly placed our empty bottles near the trash can, and started to walk the short distance to my house.  With all that beer, needless to say, we were pretty drunk.  About a block from my house, I hear my friend say he has to pee.  I was wanting to say that we are almost to my house, and that the police station is just over there, but my coordination wasn't quite up to par, and he's peeing before I can say anything.  But he was facing a building, and not only was it 3:00 AM and no one was around at that time, but no one would have seen his private parts anyway, because he was right up against a wall.  Yes, it was not good to pee right out in public like that, but we were more than a bit drunk, and neither of us were thinking straight. 

Sure enough, just as I'm slurring to my friend that there's a police station right over there, a cop pulls up right between me and my friend (he just had finished and was walking to catch up to me).  Yes, my friend probably deserved a 'urinating in public' ticket or something (although we really did no harm, in retrospect).  But that's not the issue we had with the cop...

The cop pulls up and right from the get-go is a total ass.  He was threatening my friend that he could charge him as a sex offender.  Yes... a sex offender for urinating in public.  Now I could understand if he had whipped it out in front of a bunch of people and started pissing, but this was at 3:00 AM, with not a soul around except me and the cop, and my friend was hidden by a wall the whole time.  That, what I just described, has absolutely not a damn thing to do with being a sex offender and has everything to do with just being drunk and having to pee and not making a good decision (because we were drunk).

So, you see, give the cop the power to charge someone with being a sex offender for urinating in public even though this particular incident had nothing to do with sex and watch the cop start abusing that power.

It turns out that my friend and I were polite as hell, answered every question truthfully with the utmost respect that the cop barked at us, diligently did everything the cop asked, and eventually I think the cop realized that we were not troublemakers but only a couple guys trying to walk home.  So he let us go without ever even asking our names or to see our IDs.  It also turns out that the cop was full of #$%* about being able to charge my friend as a sex offender for urinating in public.  I'm sure the cop thought he could, but I looked it up online, and any decent lawyer would have got that charge dismissed in a heartbeat.

[ferroussphinx]

This is what I wear: http://www.joerocket.com/catalog/index.cfm/234/109/Leather_Jackets/Sonic_2.0_Jacket

sharp

[Skunk Stripe]

I read the posts here and most are pretty level headed even if opinions differ. I, myself, an torn but still have to go with no.
Around the block here is 15 mph because of the number of kids playing. But not every place is the same, as such, I will not take into account the "around the block" rides as really, it does not matter.
Legislation would not help in any way. With all the different types of gear out there, it would be almost impossible to control.

Do you require armor? What type of armor and how much? How about jacket material? How about the number of stitches for a seam?
Pretty soon it would start coming to what brand and should it be a full bodysuit. Then we have boots and gloves and helmets and the people making these regulations would have no clue. they are politicians and not many of the ride bikes, most likely.

I would on the other hand favor graduated licenses for all new riders and even returning riders that have not ridden for a number of years or at the very least, a retest.
In addition, maybe a mandatory msf class every license or every other license renewal. Better training "should" make better riders.

I would support engine power limits before mandatory gear but what would be a good limit? Besides, that might stifle development and then bikes would stagnate.

One thing I would like to see if a requirement for every NEW driver to be required to spend time in an msf class on a bike to maybe plant the seed to watch out for bikes on the road. I say new as many older drivers may be up in arms on this.
I guess anything to increase the awareness of bikes on the roads.

[The_Crippler]

Like many issues of legislation in life, whether or not I am going to do something anyway, I don't want anyone to tell me I have to.  And, if it's something that I don't agree with and would never do myself, I don't want anyone telling everyone else that they can't either.


There - my patented "non-specific but all encompassing answer to any legislation debate." 

[Bob Wessner]

Careful, seems to be more a political issue and they are not welcome anylonger. 

[The_Crippler]

Aw, crapple-snapple....   

[Nikkisixx]

This is the logic stream then:
        Harming yourself causes detriment to society, so society must protect itself from the individual through legislation.  

Therefore:
 Obesity and smoking should be illegal

Since the later kill more people I say lets ban those first, then worry about road rash  

[The_Crippler]

Therefore:
 Obesity and smoking should be illegal

Okay, okay, I get the point.  Y'all want me to leave...

*scuffs shoe and kicks a pebble*

[Damfino]

Don't ask me....I'm still mesmerized by the shiny red circle with the white x in it....

[flybox1]

Don't ask me....I'm still mesmerized by the shiny red circle with the white x in it....

DONT PRESS IT!!!!! 

[tramp]

always wear my jacket ,boots, long pantsd my full wrap helmet
that being said
i want no government telling me what to wear

[Nikkisixx]

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!

[BobbyR]

Actually I would like some recommendations on a good all around jacket.

[The_Crippler]

Not to sound like a total fanboy, but I like my jacket a lot.  Now, I got mine on sale because my local shop was switching to a different brand.  They felt that there was "better quality at a better price."  Might be true, but it might also have been "better profit margins."

Unlike the link I sent says, mine has zip-out panels (not sure if they changed the design, or something.)  They're fantastic on warm days, because the wind acts almost like air conditioning.

All the pockets have zippers, and there is an inside one - which I like, because I can put my cell in there.  Construction is solid - several years, and no seems are loose, none of the leather is faded, etc.
The piping on the shoulders and arms looks normal in sunlight, but is reflective at night.
There is also a waist zipper for riding pants if you want to make it a suit, and the back plate is removable.

Cons: With the thick hide and armor, it gets really hot when sitting in traffic, even with the panels out (flip side is, it keeps you warm for cold-weather riding.)  Also, with all the armor, it's molded for a riding position, but not for "hey, I'm heading out for the night and need a coat."  (Gets a little cumbersome to wear in the car or at the bar.)

[Terry in Australia]

Careful, seems to be more a political issue and they are not welcome anylonger.  

Sorry Bob, but this was only ever meant to be a discussion about road safety, not politics. It's not a "Libs vs Dems" fight-fest, and I don't see anyone here trying to turn it into one. I think I explained why I'm concerned about the massive increase in road fatalities in my home state, and I'm asking guys here whether they think good protective clothing should be mandatory for motorcyclists?

After reading the posts so far, it appears that it would be easier (and smarter) to just ban the wearing of inappropriate clothing such as shorts, singlets and flip-flops on motorcycles. And yes, I know that a lot of protective clothing won't stop spinal injuries or people snapping their shin bones etc, but it will save them massive trauma from sliding down the roads on their bare arms, legs, backs and butts, and if you've ever done this (and I have) you'll know what I'm talking about. Nothing political here, just an honest, open discussion about road safety. Cheers, Terry.