Protective clothing

bikesnbones · Post by **bikesnbones** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 4:04 pm

Should protecive clothing be made mandatory,like helmets ?

oyster · Post by **oyster** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 5:18 pm

Oh yes, and petrol tank air bags. And crash bars. And four wheels with a roof.

Phil Thomas · Post by **Phil Thomas** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 5:37 pm

The most important thing with bike clothing is that you are comfortable...that way you are safer!

Regards to all,

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 6:40 pm

No, but riding a bike should.

tanneman · Post by **tanneman** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 7:52 pm

Absolutely not.

ned1 · Post by **ned1** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 7:59 pm

NO............
But there should be a penalty for shorts and tee shirt

slparry · Post by **slparry** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 8:14 pm

ned1 wrote:NO............
But there should be a penalty for shorts and tee shirt

there is, it's called gravel rash

GRAgusta · Post by **GRAgusta** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 8:32 pm

I feel uncomfortable about anything being compulsory in relation to bikes, I still have that freedom feeling when I'm on my bike.

But advanced training and advanced skills once accomplished really make the whole experience so much fun.

I also love pulling on the leathers and the feeling that brings ... And always have done.

Choosing to ride the bike in shorts and tee shirt ... Which I have done ... Is great too but that requires the advanced skills to make it safe and enjoyable.

So no to compulsory PPE. YES to skills and choice.

Mister C (Marsh) · Post by **Mister C (Marsh)** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:02 pm

No no and no, its our choice, right or wrong its down to your own opinion whats right or wrong, don't tell me what to do, let me decide. Also in my opinion and it is only that no amount of training can make shorts n tee-shirt a good option BUT if you choose to wear these then so be it, I don't want to tell you not too, its down to you and we should have the choice.

Regards Marsh

oooooh her indoors feels the need...

Hi Boxer peeps, My name's Rach and I'm Marsh's partner, I saw this post and for a change from polishing his bike (fooooking my arse says me) I'm gonna give my two pence.
I work as a medic, I attend the occasional biker who is worse for wear and I reckon that the compulsory helmet law is fab! However, I don't reckon they should enforce anything else apart from gloves, the only reason is, if you fall over from walking at pace, you graze your hands, as you put them out to save yourself. If you have a little wobble on a bike this increases the chances of you losing your hands. Going at speed there is not a whole lot a strip of leather will do against a tree. But then again where would they draw the line. For me all I want is peeps to be safe, enjoy their rides and not dirty my ambulance too much.

McBoxer · Post by **McBoxer** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:14 pm

Mister C (Marsh) wrote:<snip> fooooking my arse <snip>

Hats off to ya. Thanks for sharing....

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:19 pm

McBoxer wrote:
Mister C (Marsh) wrote:<snip> fooooking my arse <snip>
Hats off to ya. Thanks for sharing....

Hopefully with "protective clothing". Watch that helmet.

bikesnbones · Post by **bikesnbones** » Fri Nov 08, 2013 6:14 am

I was just curious about the opinions here, and mostly they seem to go along with mine.
However I did get caught out during a conversation with another rider the other day.
He said, do you think the helmet law is a good idea.
Well yes, of course I do.
He said, should other protective clothing that can minimize injury be made law.
Well no, I don't.
So there's a double standard.
If I don't believe full protective attire should be made law and that it should be the riders choice, how can I say in the same breath that riders should not have a choice in regard to helmets.
Tough one

cornishflat · Post by **cornishflat** » Fri Nov 08, 2013 6:22 am

bikesnbones wrote:I was just curious about the opinions here, and mostly they seem to go along with mine.
However I did get caught out during a conversation with another rider the other day.
He said, do you think the helmet law is a good idea.
Well yes, of course I do.
He said, should other protective clothing that can minimize injury be made law.
Well no, I don't.
So there's a double standard.
If I don't believe full protective attire should be made law and that it should be the riders choice, how can I say in the same breath that riders should not have a choice in regard to helmets.
Tough one

Not really, the swede is the most vulnerable part of the body. Although I would still prefer on the odd occasion to ride without a lid.

bikesnbones · Post by **bikesnbones** » Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:42 am

cornishflat wrote: Not really, the swede is the most vulnerable part of the body

Even if it is, shouldn't it be up to us to determin our own acceptable level of risk, rather than have it imposed on us.

Don't get me wrong.

I think the helmet law is a good thing, but at the same time it does contradict my view that we should have the right to choose.

Bikerhoss · Post by **Bikerhoss** » Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:03 am

I'm almost for free choice

Riding kit up to you, but helmet should stay mandatory, My reasoning is cost and life saving:

A fatal accident costs the tax payer around £1,877,583 (from 2011 stats I could find in the office)
A serious accident costs around £216,203, so to me, every time some unfortunate comes off their bike and the helmet saves them, it also saved you £1,661,380...and a life.

Stats as to how many lives saved pre & post helmet law are meaningless I reckon, as number of riders and changing bike technology render too many variables.