Why is it not compulsory to wear full leather protection while riding?

Woogie said:
So now its gone from people over eating, drinking and whatever else to I now have to out right ban motorcycles to warrant having that opinion?
Click to expand...

In my view, yes. If your primary concern is reducing strain on the NHS, it's intellectually dishonest to advocate minimum standards of protection in lieu of banning motorbikes entirely. There's no evidence that a minimum level of protection statute would have any effect on the overall cost to the health service, whereas banning a mode of transport that is massively over-represented in road casualty figures would have a significant impact.

If you want to force everyone to wear what you want them to wear, fine. Have a good reason though.
 
I have already stated it is not my primary concern but one of my primary concerns. Stop taking a single point I have said and clinging to it like a dog with a bone.

I am getting bored of having to justify myself repeatedly now so am bowing out of this conversation as it is pointless.
 
Last edited:
Woogie said:
I have already stated it is not my primary concern but one of my primary concerns. Stop taking a single point I have said and clinging to it like a dog with a bone.
Click to expand...

You said a thing. I pointed out it wasn't a consistent thing. You appear annoyed.

*shrug*

Let's start again. Why will dictating what people wear whilst riding a motorbike have a net benefit to society?

I am getting bored of having to justify myself repeatedly now so am bowing out of this conversation as it is pointless.
Click to expand...

You haven't justified yourself. That's the problem. If you consider setting out a coherent and rational argument in favour of enacting a statute 'pointless', then fine. Bye.
 
It is why I have stopped, Nothing I have said has or will sway their mindset so it is pointless me carrying on.
 
As for the bikes being a drain on the NHS, cyclist are more of a impact than pushbikes, lets enforce them to wear full leathers and helmets. Also lets ban cycling toe clips as well while we are it.

Everything is a drain on the NHS it always will be, you target motorbikes as its easy, and you have also spat your dummy out when posting on a bikers forum. Try posting on a BMW GS theread, you might get more help.
 
Yes I would though I'd always wear the gear, textile, myself. There are far more important things to spend parliamentary time on.
 
leave things as they are atm,works fine

more coarses for drivers being aware of bikers would be more beneficial
 
Freefaller said:
If they did bring in legislation, would anyone here be against it?
Click to expand...

Never got out without full leathers anyway, or at the minimum leather jacket and kevlar jeans, so to me it wouldn't make a difference.

I don't really care what others do either, all the people I see riding in shorts and sandals have obviously never crashed and they wont last very long if they do ;) but at the end of the day its their own choice on their own safety.
 
ElliorR said:
Yes I would though I'd always wear the gear, textile, myself. There are far more important things to spend parliamentary time on.
Click to expand...

I agree there are more important things to legislate. Heck people still use their phones when driving despite the rules.

It wouldn't bother me as I always ride in gear, but if all things were equal but clearly there are more important fish to fry.

It would be good if they improved the standards of driving of both car and bike riders instead of prosecuting. However sometimes people need to be protected for themselves. I guess it depends on how it was implemented.

Katoom said:
Stop worrying about what I'm wearing and concentrate on your driving.
Click to expand...

I do worry about fellow bikers as I don't like seeing people die and giving the rest of us a bad name for being reckless. :) fortunately my driving and riding is all I do worry about on the road don't worry. :) unless your driving or riding is putting me at risk of course ;)

Fireskull said:
Never got out without full leathers anyway, or at the minimum leather jacket and kevlar jeans, so to me it wouldn't make a difference.

I don't really care what others do either, all the people I see riding in shorts and sandals have obviously never crashed and they wont last very long if they do ;) but at the end of the day its their own choice on their own safety.
Click to expand...

I care because I care about those around me. Not because I want to stick my nose in their business but because I'm older and wiser and know how bad bike spills can be.

Ultimately it's all about you I agree but I will always have a word with a rider if he's in shorts and t-shirts or what I think I unsuitable clothing. I'd never convoy with friends who don't wear proper gear but then all my friends are sensible. :)

Dont get me wrong there are more important things to tackle and we don't have the police resources to do anything about it. I guess perhaps education is a fairer statement as to what is needed.
 
growse said:
Because if you actually wanted to reduce the drain motorcyclists impose on the NHS in a meaningful way, you would be advocating a ban on motorbikes.
Click to expand...
More people drive cars. More people = more crashes = greater drain.
Statistically more people get hurt riding horses, too...
Suicide and poisonings (including accidental) are apparently the biggest killers, along with heart and lung disease...

growse said:
There's no evidence that a minimum level of protection statute would have any effect on the overall cost to the health service
Click to expand...
I'd think it'd *increase* the cost - More people surviving, but likely still with injuries = More people needing care. The older nurses said they saw far more people coming into A&E with injuries from car accidents than 20 years previous before all the airbags and crumple zones came along.

Less kit = More deaths = Simple scrape-up job.
 
ttaskmaster said:
More people drive cars. More people = more crashes = greater drain.
Statistically more people get hurt riding horses, too...
Suicide and poisonings (including accidental) are apparently the biggest killers, along with heart and lung disease...
Click to expand...

The issue here is that bikers are more likely to end up in hospital than car drivers. They impose a disproportionate cost on the NHS relative to other road users. It's a silly conclusion though, because the premise is silly.

I'd think it'd *increase* the cost - More people surviving, but likely still with injuries = More people needing care. The older nurses said they saw far more people coming into A&E with injuries from car accidents than 20 years previous before all the airbags and crumple zones came along.

Less kit = More deaths = Simple scrape-up job.
Click to expand...

It's one way of looking at it. You also have to factor in changes in riding behaviour due to everyone being kitted up - people tend to become less risk-averse when they know there are more safety devices ion place to protect them (see accident rates when mandatory seatbelt laws were introduced).

My point is that it's not simple. Laws tend to have lots and lots of unintended consequences.
 
growse said:
The issue here is that bikers are more likely to end up in hospital than car drivers.
Click to expand...
I thought the big Hoo-Hah is generally over how they tend to die more, rather than get injured?

growse said:
They impose a disproportionate cost on the NHS relative to other road users.
Click to expand...
Not often through choice, though (see next quote).
But *do* they... Or do they just represent a higher death percentage on the statistics? Body bags cost far less than months of rehab...

growse said:
It's a silly conclusion though, because the premise is silly.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, very silly, since about 87% of all bike accidents invoving another vehicle are ruled as the fault of the other vehicle!
The better premise would be better and more frequent training of those loonies in the 'other vehicle' category... which also includes other motorcyclists, apparently!

growse said:
It's one way of looking at it.
Click to expand...
That's just an as-is perspective, though and does not factor in any changes in kit, culture, etc.

growse said:
people tend to become less risk-averse when they know there are more safety devices ion place
Click to expand...
Same goes for car drivers and I know there's a lot of them get injured. I see them almost weekly!
IMO, one of the biggest errors is to put things like Max Speed signs up on corners, as people usually try and do at least that speed. Far better to force them into reading the road, analysing their driving and taking it at what they feel is a safe approach. Usually that works out slower and safer, as it does on country roads (excluding the local drivers).

growse said:
My point is that it's not simple. Laws tend to have lots and lots of unintended consequences.
Click to expand...
No argument there.
I suspect a lot of it is not understanding the full nature of what's being ruled upon to begin with.
 
ThundyCat said:
Does it not bother you that if you came off your bike you could possibly be peeled from head to toe like an orange?

Or are you happy to take the risk?
Click to expand...

got smashed off my bike by an old lady and escaped with bruising and a small backing injury. was wearing a leather jacket and a pair of next cargo pants.

crashing doesn't always = omg no skin.

but normally i always wear a jacket (cause its cold) helmet gloves and solid boots but if im doing the 11 minute ride to work i just wear my work pants.


does it worry you that in a crash you could be trapped inside your car and slowly burnt alive along with your wife and children?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom