1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'Biker's Cafe' started by ThundyCat, Jul 9, 2014.

  1. BuffetSlayer

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 19, 2012

    Posts: 4,383

    Yes, and it has been decided for a long time that wearing a helmet greatly reduces serious head injuries even in the most basic of spills.


    I think it is correct that bikers are on the back foot. We are an inconvenience that the government could do without. But they cant just come out and ban motorbikes. No they will just make it harder and more expensive to own one until the number of bikes on the road diminishes to non-existence.


    Now you are just being pedantic. Nobody is saying that we should go to that extent because doing so would be unreasonable as well as massively impractical. However, wearing protective clothing is not unreasonable. So much so that I would argue a majority of bikers do it anyway, so why not just make that good practice compulsary?

    Yet more pedantry. Why do you have this idea that because I want to improve safety that somehow extrapolates into me not wanting to let people out of their homes? But to pick up on some of your points, modern cars do indeed do a lot of driving themselves. Features such as ABS, traction control, adaptive suspension, adaptive cruise control, electronic brake distribution, parking aids, lane change aids, lane departure warnings, automatic hazards on hard braking, ability to read speed marker posts, adaptive headlights, auto dimming main beams and so on and so forth. They have to have considerable crumple zones for pedestrian safety as part of the Euro NCAP testing criteria. Indeed the whole design is for the car to deform and distribute the energy of impact through the chaissis, so it does often mean cars are written off after impact because they are designed that way.


    :rolleyes: Yes I want to protect bikers. I think making safety clothing compulsary is a reasonable measure. The kind of things you suggest above are not. Reaffirming good practice with rules is something we have done in this country for centuries. There was a time when cars didnt have seatbelts, for example. Now they are compulsary. The same goes for motorcycle helmets.


    All examples of poor driving practices. All of which can and do cause accidents. (Or Road Traffic Incidents to give them their correct name). Smoking and eating at the wheel are two more. The police can and will give you penalty points for a lot of these things but their numbers are so thin on the ground that a lot of day to day poor driving practices get left unchecked, with the exception of mobile phone use.

    Loud music - that falls under antisocial behaviour (but the police can enforce driving without due care as well).

    Eating, drinking, smoking at the wheel - driving without due care.

    Talking passengers is why there are campaigns to put new drivers under curfew, and limit the passangers they can carry. Studies have shown that the two elements of driving at night and distraction from passengers are significant contributing factors to serious incidents and fatalities amongst young drivers. However, they also show that older drivers are more immune to in car distractions. The study hints that it is due to maturity and better risk awareness.

    Actually as mentioned above, other than the footwear, you could have penalty points on your license for driving without due care and attention. However if you were in an accident and the police noticed you were wearing flip flops they would make note of it and if it turned out the accident was your fault, it is highly likely they would throw it back in your face as a causative factor.


    Right, so you dont feel that the head protection in the event of an accident is worth mentioning then? Just that it is a good barrier against flies and such?


    Most commuting bikers will carry a backpack with a change of clothes in. I know I do when I commute on mine. I get to work and get changed. Simples.

    Other people I know have bought protective gear that is a couple of sizes too big in order to wear over the top of their daily clothes. But to be fair, it is only really the trousers, as a biking jacket will easily fit over most clothes.


    Wait what? Who mentined a massive suit of bike armour? I wear armoured textiles and have no issues walking around a supermarket whatsoever. Do you even ride a motorbike? Some of the things you say make it sound like you have no idea what protective clothing for bikes is like. I also own a two piece set of leathers, and they are also easy enough to walk around in. But I accept the point that biking is not practical for all commuters. When I rode a GS I used to pack spare clothes and footwear into my panniers so I could get changed. then my helmet, boots and biking gear got packed away into the panniers leaving me to wander about in 'normal' clothes. I had no issues with this, and I know many bikers do the same.

    A lot of safety gear is not cheap, this is true, but it is worth its weight in gold if you should have need of it. That said, you can still buy a useful set of textiles for a couple of hundred quid. It may not be top of the range but it would be a lot better than a tracksuit. However it is a valid point that manufacturers and outlets may try to profiteer but that could be nipped in the bud by the government. Additionally, the support from government could come in the form of subsidised biking gear. But my main point is that most bikers have biking gear anyway. So it is not going to be a massive shock to them for it to become compulsary. However, where it is a little more difficult is for new riders (usually young lads) who may not be able to afford the kit they need. This is where my focus would be with regards to assistance with funding. I would not for one moment suggest that we try and fund protective clothing for all bikers because of the point above - most bikers already own it.

    Agreed, if you ban something you send it under ground. However, surely you accept that the ban on easy procurement of all fire arms is a good thing for society? I cannot really compare the US to here because of the massive size difference. But maybe lets look at any gun loving US state of a comparible size to the UK and look at gun crime/fatalities compared to this country.

    Look at the problem we have with knives. Imagine if guns were readily available and all those knife crime statistics became gun crime statistics (which they probably would). As it stands, only the hardcore minority actually get their hands on guns, which can only be a good thing.


    :rolleyes:

    Do you want a discussion or are you going to continue with this purile waffle? :)


    As I suspected. You are anti establishment. ;)


    Well of course, if there is a thread on OCUK it must be true. My point was that motorbikes are such a minority these days that to have to accomodate them into road traffic policing, safety designs, infrastructure designs etc etc is an inconvenience for the government. Sad really, because more people on motorbikes would aid congestion, but I guess judging by the mentality of a lot of car drivers they would not be suitable candidates to ride a motorbike in the first place!


    This is why we need an overhaul of the learning system for drivers and riders, along with more traffic police. I agree with the punishment element. But it is hard to balance. Would it be reasonable to issue a driving ban to anyone using their mobile phone? Would it make drivers more blase because it is an all or nothing situation? For example, drink driving is a driving ban if you get caught, but loads of people still do it. The same as driving +30 over the posted speed limit. People still do it. The other issue, of course, is if you start banning people left right and centre you are going to increase the number of unlicensed and uninsured drivers on the road. That is not good for anyone.


    ......wait what? Number of who riding without helmets? Bikers? Cannot say I have seen any bikers in the last 10 years riding without a helmet, other than the odd lad having a go on his mates scooter around an estate. I am not sure what your point is?


    This sentence does not really make sense. I can only speak for myself, but I know for a fact protective clothing, boots and helmet saved my father life. He was still smashed up real bad, but he survived because of the protection they gave him. If he had of just been wearing a helmet, he would have been killed. So as I said, I am biased because of what he went through as well as meeting several young lads in the physio ward months later who had terrible injuries. Granted, some of them were wearing protective clothing during their accidents but there were a few that were not. It was scary to see their crippling injuries, and in the case I mentioned in another post - one lad just popped to the shop for milk. Didnt make it home and is now permanently deformed and disabled.

    No society does not equal the individual, but that does not exclude the minority from being part of society, and therefore deserving of consideration and respect.

    You make it sound very black and white. Many bikers commute on bikes because they cant afford cars. What would you have them do? Not go to work and claim dole? Public transport can be prohibitively expensive as well as unreliable, and many live in rural or semi rural areas where the public transport system is woeful. What about the young lad who is working his first job but cant afford the car and insurance to drive it? I accept than people riding bikes for pleasure purposes are a little different but to many a motorbike is their primary form of transport and essential to their daily lives.

    It is not opinion though is it? The evidence overwhelmingly shows that protective gear reduces injury and saves lives. This is the exact same reason why the motorcycle helmet became compulsary.



    Of course you could. But that is not what I am suggesting, nor would I. Protective clothing is a reasonable safety measure for bikers to take. If you ride, do you wear protective clothing? If you do, do you feel it is an unreasonable side-effect of your mode of transport? Regarding 20MPH, it is interesting that some London boroughs are actually introducing that speed limit across large sections. I personally feel that is overkill, in the same way as wearing an expensive airbag suit would be for a biker. But run of the mill protective clothing that can and will reduce injuries is not unreasonable in my opinion.



    The feeling I have been getting from recent posters is that their issue over compulsary protective clothing is more to do with loss of civil liberties than any concerns over safety. So I thought I would throw in a question about guns to see if their anti establishment pro-choice outlook stood for all things :)



    Again where have I said I am in favour of extreme measures? I am not keen on extrapolating, but keen on taking reasonable steps to improve safety. It is frustrating that posters on here seem intent on driving forward with pedantry.

    This is probably the best comment made thus far against the idea. It is true that enforcement could be troublesome. So how was it so easily achieved with helmets? Granted it is an immediate visual confirmation to any police officer, but to be fair so is protective clothing (in the main). I personally think that due to most bikers wearing protective clothing anyway, it would not be such an issue to introduce. I think the evidence strongly points to riding with protective gear having clear benefits vs riding without in the event of an accident. I dont think any reasonable biker will ride like a fool just because they have a pair of leathers on. Indeed, I think it is simply fools riding motorbikes who happen to wear leathers that give bikers a bad name!

    Here is a hypothetical question: If it was decided that everyone should ride motorbikes, and the car was banned - do you think the government would introduce compulsary safety clothing then? I think they would. So the only reason they do not do so now is because bikers are a minority - but that does not change the benefits and good practice of using safety clothing.

    True, I also accept we need a fundamental shift in our approach to road safety. As I mentioned earlier this needs to come in the form of a grass roots change in our education and training process. we need far higher standards, and we need to be drumming road safety issues into kids long before they get behind the wheel of a car (in the same way I believe we should be teaching kids money management and sensible banking etc).

    However, to disregard a reasonably effective safety measure on that basis is counter productive. It is for the same reason we have seatbelts in cars. Airbags. Crumple zones and side impact protection. ABS, EBD, TCS etc. All of these additional safety measures have been introduced as standard even though the accident rates in this country have been pretty consistent for the last decade. So it is completely true we need to rethink our mindset regarding road traffic safety but that is no reason why we cannot, or should not introduce safety measures that benefit people in the interim.

    However, I do accept that if we make people feel safer they are more likely to be blase about risks. But I cannot really see that being applied to bikers as riding a bike on todays roads is a risk in and of itself. Most bikers feel vulnerable anyway, even with safety gear on. Cars are a different matter. I have said for a long time now that a lot of the electronic systems on cars make us worse drivers. It makes us lazy and it makes us less spatially aware, and it makes us less competent as drivers as a whole. But having said that it cannot be denied that those systems have helped reduce serious injuries and fatalities. You only need to look at the benefits of seatbelts and airbags to see that.


    I was talking more in the sense of it being overly prescriptive. Any BSI rated gear is better than a tracksuit or a t-shirt. Indeed it could be a drive to increase competition and drive up standards whilst reducing cost.



    Safety gear does demosntrably make a difference. It is why all people you see on roadworks are wearing full body high vis. Why people using powertools wear safety goggles, why people on building sites wear safety boots and hard hats. It is not simply for show, they have a purpose.

    The same goes for protective clothing for bikers. It can mean the difference between a minor incident remaining minor, or causing life changing injuries (like the lad I mentioned who went out for milk and didnt make it home). Of course in any major incident, the bikers chances are greatly reduced anyway, even with safety gear. But that safety gear can be the thin line between living and dying, as it was in my fathers case.



    I dont know all of the figures I'm afraid, but I do know the cycle scheme cost £140m in London alone.

    But the scheme has also been badly abused. I personally know of people who have had high end bikes through it and they have never been used for going to work.

    I am not saying more people cycling to work is a bad idea, but why should it be government subsidised?


    I used loans as an example, not as a definite explanation of how it would work logistically. The goverment gives tax breaks to various individuals, groups and entities all of the time, for example, and that is how the cycle to work scheme is part funded. There is no reason they couldnt do this for those bikers who need gear but dont have any. They could make it part of the testing process, for example. IE - nobody is let loose on the roads without protective gear. The government heavily subsidise all kinds of things, so there is no reason they could not offer help to those who would need it. It is not like I am suggesting we buy new protective gear for all UK bikers. Most of us have our own kit and some are lucky enough that a bike is a weekend play thing, not an essential mode of transport. In essence it is the ones in need I would want to help financially. Your young kids just getting into work, trying to make their way in life. The ones who need a bike for work but are on NMW, so on and so forth.

    Enforcing the wearing of such gear would probably mostly be academic, insomuch as most bikers wear safety clothing already. It would just mean that those who stand out like a sore thumb can be dealt with officially. It would also make those people who just pop to the shop in their shorts and t-shirt think twice. I cant tell you how many times I have heard from injured bikers saying they wished they never chanced it. Of course these changes take time. If it were implemented, along with a strong push on the education side of things, in another 10 years it would be regarded as normal and not some insane idea that couln't possibly work.


    Well lets look at what is happening. The test is becoming harder, although in many instances it is blind car drivers that injure bikers.

    Police are out in force on any sunny day in any area with good biking roads.

    Road traffic safety features are still orientated towards cars, wth most major organisations admitting they have done no research on their suitability and safety for motorcyclists. Still no ban on cable barriers.

    Still no action taken against farmers and suchlike who foul rural roads and do not clean them up as per their duty under law.

    Still widely using road surfaces at pedestrian crossings that are known to be a hinderance to bikes braking.

    Still no introduction of compulsary safety clothing even though all evidence shows it is a benefit and even specialist groups like ROSPA advocate and recommend their use.

    Blanket VED rate for the majority of engine sizes.



    Fair comment about it possibly being seen as an anti-biker sentiment, but that is why the government should step in and help. As I said above, these changes take time and people do not like change. For a long time now, the biking community has seen helmets as normal. Back in the 70's there was uproar and complaints about erosion of civil liberties and even Enoch Powell decided to put the boot in! Can you really say compulsary safety gear would be a massive erosion of civil liberty compared to, say, communication data use by GCHQ? Is it really that big a deal? Or do people just like to be up in arms for being up in arms sake?


    Yes. So we should discard some laws because we dont have enough police? Or we should not implement new laws because we dont have enough police? In this situation it is not the law that is the problem but the lack of police.

    That is a backwards approach. How about we get more police and less politicians, for example? :)

    If we had not have wasted millions on the Dome for example, or on speed cameras all over the country, or on any number of dumb ideas we could have more police. But yes, feel free to deride me for wanting to introduce a reasonable compulsary safety measure for bikers!
     
  2. bloodiedathame

    Sgarrista

    Joined: May 11, 2007

    Posts: 7,719

    Location: Surrey

    **** reading that.
     
  3. Yaayuh!

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 5, 2010

    Posts: 19,907

    Indeed.
     
  4. growse

    Soldato

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,139

    Location: Ironing

    Sadly, I don't have the time at the moment to go through this point by point.

    I will say this:

    You seem to be confusing the effect of having everyone wear protective clothing with having a *law* mandating everyone wearing protective clothing. I agree that if every biker started wearing full kit overnight, that would in general be a good thing. I however disagree that a law enforcing this is a good idea. The state beating people with a stick is not a good way to get things done, because people behave differently when they are forced into behaviours rather than deciding to behave in a particular way of their own accord.

    Laws are expensive to write, and to enforce. I've yet to see anything that would suggest that this proposed law would have a net benefit, and not actually increase costs on society.

    People should be wearing protective gear because it's a good idea, not because the government makes them do it. People should also have the freedom to make their own risk assessments when it comes to their own well-being.

    I have ridden my bike up and down the private road at the back of my house at a maximum speed of 10mph without a helmet, mostly to test various bits and pieces after I've been fiddling with it. Had it been a public road, I'd be breaking the law. What's the difference in my making a risk assessment to my health on a private road vs a public road?
     
  5. 4T5

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Aug 30, 2004

    Posts: 27,746

    Location: Middle of England


    :p Same.


    There is an advert on the radio at the mo stating that 30 bikers a day are killed at junctions.
    Personally I think the way to make Biking safer is to prosecute car drivers more severely when they do something stupid that injures a biker.
    Bloke that pulled out on me was Cautioned & it was put down to a momentary lapse in concentration. :rolleyes:

    All he got was a caution & a dent in his car wing/other damage for nearly killing me. :rolleyes:
     
  6. thedoc46

    Soldato

    Joined: Jan 18, 2003

    Posts: 5,929

    Location: Expat in the USA

    In the UK the average is around 1 a day. Between 300 & 400 a yr on average. Those numbers are grossly exaggerated.

    Also ButtSlayer, as others have said.. You need to get out more.. What did that take you all night to write all that point by point ? Was it worth it? No-one (including myself) is bothering to read it. :p
     
  7. BuffetSlayer

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 19, 2012

    Posts: 4,383

    The majority of bikers already accept that wearing safety gear is a good idea, and thus wear it.

    The reason the government would make it law is because it is such a good idea and every biking institution in the land agrees, as does every safety campaigner and the medical profession.

    There are plenty of road traffic laws that get partially enforced, or not at all. Driving whilst smoking is one. A police officer on patrol does not have to pull over everyone they see smoking behind the wheel.

    However if they feel a particular driver is driving badly due to smoking (perhaps they have dropped the lit end in their lap) then they can use the law to take action accordingly.

    The same would apply to bikers. There would be the usual awareness campaign where police would be out in force as soon as the weather gets better, but they do this anyway, so thats not really a hinderance. Then moving forward they have the legal powers to take action against people when needed. It would not amount to them stopping every biker they see to check they had on protective clothing.

    But perhaps you are right in that winning hearts and minds first would be beneficial. An education campaign would perhaps help people view this subject differently, but that will be costly. You could also have a policy lead in time of say 5 years to give the biking community and those thinking about getting a bike time to adjust.

    I do not think it would be as prohibitive as you suggest, and they need not write new laws, just amend current ones. We do this kind of thing all of the time. Just look at how they changed the law in 2011 so you had to have your vehicle insured even if it was off road and unused.
     
  8. BuffetSlayer

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 19, 2012

    Posts: 4,383

    Your posts say far more about you than they do about me :)

    Seeing as you speak for everyone though, please give them my warmest regards. ;)
     
  9. growse

    Soldato

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,139

    Location: Ironing

    You want to write a new law, and then not have it enforced? What's the point?

    And what factors would you recommend the police take into account to selectively enforce this? If I'm bumbling along at 20mph in jeans and a tshirt, do I need to have action taken against me? What about if I'm swerving around traffic at 70mph on the M1 in a cheap, fake, non-BSI jacket?

    The action the police should be taking against bikers is reducing bad riding. And this is because bad riding is a danger to others as well as the rider.
     
  10. BuffetSlayer

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 19, 2012

    Posts: 4,383

    No I want the law enforced. But that does not mean persecuting every biker on the road by pulling them over to check their kit. But it does allow for action to be taken against people who do not wear the gear. The point about fake kit is an interesting one, although I am not sure these changes would lead to a black market of fake safety gear.

    If you were swerving around traffic on the motorway you would be pulled for that anyway most likely (dangerous riding), not your fake BSI jacket.

    We are in agreement that bad riding/driving is a core element of the problem. But that requires and even longer term strategy to tackle (not to mention a more expensive one). Enforcing good practice still seems like a reasonable approach in the interim.
     
  11. ttaskmaster

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Sep 11, 2013

    Posts: 9,752

    I clearly have nothing to do at work today.... :D


    They can, actually.
    Several cities around the world have done so and Brent Council did it in August last year, banning bikes from a couple of roads near the Ace.

    I say again - These are things that already HAVE been seriously proposed measures to make riding safer. A few very nearly made it, but for the efforts of MAG, BMF, etc.
    There certainly are people saying this...!!!

    It's not the principle, it's the execution.
    Also, not to be pedantic, but I'm actually being facetious rather than pedantic. ;)

    Most of those are aids, not automated systems. Good luck fitting that lot to a bike.
    Furthermore - I don't drive a modern car and I don't ride a modern bike. Both are over 22 years old.

    The resulting price hike will make it UNreasonable.
    If stuff is wanted, prices get competitive. If stuff is essential, people will charge what they like knowing that you have to buy it from somewhere and they have only to beat their competitors or offer what you think is a good deal. Why do you think your bills are so high, or that solicitors earn an insane fortune?

    Generally only if you can be caught under the Dangerous Driving/Undue Care & Attention blanket, though.
    But still these are things that *might* be factors in the event of a crash, not things that are guaranteed to cause them. Same for choosing to ride in something other than full body armour.

    A factor, not a cause.

    It *can* help in certain circumstances. I've had three offs, none of which involved hitting my head. I also couldn't afford armoured leathers back then, but suffered no ill effects as a result.
    By contrast, I've known two good riders and one unbelievably exceptional rider all killed outright by the circumstances of their incidents. All were in full, top notch kit head to toe.

    Who the hell is talking about commuting?
    I'm talking about LIFE, man...!!!

    Kent County Showground
    Morrisons
    Tesco
    ASDA
    Waitrose
    B&Q
    Vue Cinema
    My Aunt Agatha's house for tea
    The Tower Of London
    Ace Cafe
    Fox's Diner
    Box Hill
    Gary Numan in concert
    The garden centre
    Several local pubs

    These are all places I've ridden to very recently, along with a load more I can't be bothered to list.

    How many of them have changing facilities?
    Do you seriously expect me to keep changing at each one?

    I ride everywhere. The bike is my transport. There is no other option.
    I require kit I can comfortably wear all day in all (or at least most) weathers, without having to waddle around like some decrepid, arthritic Power Ranger with the runs!

    What, and crease my workwear??!! [laugh]

    For many people, that is what they face. Most of the people who ride to work here do not wear full kit (if any, beyond a lid) because it means having to lug a wardrobe around all the time. More so if they want the higher protection that leather affords.

    Nah, of course not...
    I just wear full leathers all the time to make people think I'm cool!! :D

    As mentioned, this is about far more than just commuting.

    I personally don't do textiles. I only wear leathers. But even so, everyone still asks me if I'm hot in them.

    And where did you get changed?
    Did everywhere provide changing facilities, did you expose yourself in the car park, or were you stuck having to struggle in the inevitably ****-soaked floor of the Gents every time?

    Leathers can be even cheaper.
    But that's now.
    I still maintain that this will leap in price if it becomes mandatory.

    What the hell would THEY care??!!
    So what if biking is suddenly more expensive? Riders are an inconvenience anyway, right?
    Who CARES??!!

    It's still not cheap and the bigger focus should be on commuters. More people are taking to bikes and scooters, simply because it's cheaper and better than the car these days. You bump the price of kit through laws and fewer will get riding, leading to smaller markets and even higher prices.

    And when theirs wears out.....?

    Err... no.... These were already 'underground'. The point is that they're still there and the law did nothing to impact them.

    Actual firing weapons, perhaps... But how does banning the painting of a £5 water pistol lower the crime rate?
    How does banning the purchase of a £3,000 collectors item, or a £20,000 non-functional film prop prevent gun crime?
    It's all in how these things are done.

    Look how guns are pretty much all outlawed here, yet we somehow still have gun crime.
    Look also at how we still have pretty high crime rates, even without guns...

    Ban knives, people will use tools.
    Ban tools, people will use cutlery.
    Ban cutlery, people will use sharp sticks and broken glass.


    That's funny... I was about ask you the same thing...

    I'm more of an antidisestablishmentarian, if you want to start labelling...
    I'm not especially anti-establishment as I tend to obey the law, but governments themselves generally are a bunch of ruddy pillocks.

    People in the Motors section were asked why more of them don't ride.
    Those were the common answers among the more serious responses - Fear of death/accident and not trusting themselves to refrain from speeding.
    They're also the common responses I find when people tell me, "Oh, I could never ride a bike myself...".

    Along with horses, cyclists, etc...
    But for most things, there are no special or additional requirements.

    They cannot really judge what they have not tried. They also do not want to see those points where they are the problem instead of the bikes.

    Not even.
    Just a change in attitudes.

    Given how most come with a headset or hands-free kit these days, which only costs a few quid anyway, I'd not argue with it.
    Even my lid can accomodate a Bluetooth clip-on that will let me use my phone without even looking at it.

    If?
    *IF*??!!
    You think so many would do it if you were instead talking about *WHEN* they get caught?
    That is what it's all about - The *if*.
    Same as when you're riding along - You follow the 'What Happens If...' mentality, rather than the 'What Happens When...'.

    And you think making full kit mandatory will be a barrier to those wanting to ride otherwise?

    Helmets. Bikers. Riding without.

    Seen three just this month my own self, including one in just sunnies down a 70mph A-Road.
    Obviously it's mostly a Summer thing, but I see it quite a bit, especially in town and all on public roads.

    Protective gear can help, sometimes, but it's nowhere near as good as people seem to think.

    Depends how much of a minority and how much effort it's going to require.

    See my earlier remarks about merely 'commuting'.
    However, biking is still mostly seen as a pleasure activity, rather than an essential practicality.

    Well done.
    You have arrived at the same conclusion it took the government many studies to ascertain and they still don't believe most of it!!

    Yes, it's about having the choice.
    We choose to ride a bike for whatever reason(s), even if it's choosing to buy a bike now rather than walk everywhere or save up for a decade or so to *try* and afford a car.

    Choose life. Choose a make. Choose a model. Choose an owners forum. Choose a flipping fast motorcycle. Choose Muc Off products, leathers or textiles, helmets, gloves, boots, SatNavs, panniers and crash bars. Choose good training, low insurance and breakdown cover. Choose fixed-interest finance repayments. Choose a 125cc learner bike. Choose your riding buddies. Choose BMW touring jackets and matching luggage. Choose a one-piece race rep suit on hire purchase in a range of flipping fabrics. Choose DIY maintenance and wondering what the flip you are doing on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting in that swivel-chair watching mind-numbing spirit-crushing riding Vlogs on YouTube, stuffing flipping junk food into your mouth. Choose selling the bike at the end of it all, riding your last to a miserable dealership trade-in, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, mucked-up brats you have spawned to replace yourself. Choose your roads. Choose life....
    But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life: I chose something else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got a car?
    :D


    It's all in the execution.

    So we all start getting Draggin' suits. Never tell the difference. Might even make the mistake our own selves every now and then, eh...

    Even the most reasonable will still mess around more than without it.

    What you call me, huh? HUH??!! :D

    Nope.
    That's even more people to police over something and really only enforcable if you pull someone. You can see if a belt is worn and get the car's number plate as they pass.
    You'd have to pull a bike, strip them and check labels, panels, stitching and armour.

    As discussed in another thread (the car flipping over the wall in an ad, I believe), the people that most commonly do this will still do it. They know full well the consequences, but will still do it.

    Yeah, like most H&S it primarily helps the company cover their own backsides and argue that it's someone else's fault!!
    Any protective benefits are an added bonus.


    Is this that pile of *******s scheme where the company gives you a loan and then takes it out of your salary, plus interest, then you remain responsible for the cycle yet never end up owning it yourself, either?

    Why should the guv'mint pay for loonies to wear fancy clothing while they hoon around on missiles ?

    That's just good practice.
    You don't hang around sweet shops hoping to catch jewel thieves...

    Never heard this one... Does it affect cars too, then, or only some kind of special tyres that bikes have?

    Still no introduction of compulsary safety clothing even though all evidence shows it is a benefit and even specialist groups like ROSPA advocate and recommend their use.

    And nicely low it is, too.
    You start sniffing my tail pipe, not only will I call you a fagget (har har har), but I would end up paying more in emissions. I'm sure it will get skewed too, just like the report on how "60% of bikers do not pay road tax" was...!
     
  12. .one.

    Mobster

    Joined: Aug 1, 2006

    Posts: 3,645

    OH god I dread the next replied quoted post :D
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2014
  13. BuffetSlayer

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 19, 2012

    Posts: 4,383

    :D:D

    No I dont think I can be bothered. And it is nearly home time.

    Aint gonna make mental long posts when I aint getting paid, thats just silly! :p

    Although I will concede that what growse and ttaskmaster have said makes a lot of sense.

    I shall not bother pondering later because I need to drink beer and stuff. But I may think about it again tomorrow when I come back to work.
     
  14. ttaskmaster

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Sep 11, 2013

    Posts: 9,752

    Mwah-hah-hah-hah-hahhhhhhhh!!! :D
     
  15. 4T5

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Aug 30, 2004

    Posts: 27,746

    Location: Middle of England

    **** that.


    :p
     
  16. wazza300

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 11, 2009

    Posts: 27,065

    Location: BenefitStreetBirmingham

    god its hot out there

    I wonder if its illegal to ride in your jockey Wilson's? haha
     
  17. Tefal

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 30, 2007

    Posts: 66,538

    Location: Wales

    thats nearly 11 thousand a year i doubt that for some reason lol
     
  18. Tefal

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 30, 2007

    Posts: 66,538

    Location: Wales

    why not? the helmet laws both here and America did.
     
  19. TallPaul_S

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 24, 2011

    Posts: 5,779

    Location: Kent

    Maybe in the world, but it's certainly not UK figures.

    More people are murdered in the UK than die from motorcycle accidents each year (around 300 I believe).
     
  20. DangerMoose

    Wise Guy

    Joined: May 23, 2005

    Posts: 1,086

    Location: Nottingham