To think that protective clothing should be compulsory for motorbike/moped riders.

[Saggyoldclothcatpuss]

After seeing a teen picked up from the ground (thankfully unscathed) after coming off his moped this morning, I started wandering about this. My friend is a biker, and told me that when you take bike lessons, you are advised to wear protective clothing, but it's not a legal requirement. I see these youngsters whizzing round wearing shorts and teeshirts, or jeans, and they have no protection at all. Apparently, you lose 1mm of flesh for every foot you slide when you hit the floor in a skid!

DP is home, the following is his arguement for not wearing full leathers every day.

The major cause of death in motorcycle collisions are a broken neck or crush injuries. Leathers will not stop these two types of deaths and in many instances they will help cause it.

At approximately 72 degrees F the human mind functions optimally (although this varies in people used to significantly different climates). Every 3 degrees F above this figure you lose X percent of your processing/calculating ability. Imagine a summer day, the temperature when stood still in shorts, t-shirt and trainers is perhaps 80 degrees F. As you get hotter decisions become harder to make, stresses become less bearable and your thinking slows down. So on this 80 degree day you put your full protective leathers on and go out on your motorcycle.

In slow moving traffic or worse still stopped for lights/roadworks etc the temperature in leathers can easily exceed 110 degrees F. The things that malfuction at those temperatures include your vision, concentration, calmness and spatial awareness. These are the things that help to ensure your survival as a motorcyclist. Because there is no direct air flow to your skin when you do reach the open road you do not cool down much for the greater speed. Air vents in modern leathers/textiles help, but not massively. You may well open your visor to get a bit more air, but you are then liable to objects such as insects, ciggarette ends and gravel injuring your eyes. If not your eyes then the delicate skin of your face. You are now riding along, even without an eye or face injury, without an accurate judgement of the distance of the vehicles around you or of potentially hazardous junctions/roundabouts or road surfaces.

(The onset of this malfunctioning at high temperatures is not dramatic or noticed, it creeps up on you in the same way that impaired thinking in low temperatures does).

You may suddenly find yourself too close to the vehicle in front when it's brake lights appear and unable to stop. You may go to overtake the vehicle in front of you and find you have miscalculated the approaching distance and speed of an oncomming vehicle. This is bad judgement brought about by overheating.

I would prefer to ride my motorcycle without protective leathers/textile gear as I consider myself to be more in control of my motorcycle than I would be if I were wearing full leathers in hot weather.

The increase in risk caused by getting something wrong while wearing leathers is an increased risk of death, paralysis or serious injury. The increase in risk to me by wearing shorts is an increased risk of abrasion but a lowered risk of rider-error (the largest attributable factor in motorcycle collisions).

I am aware that I may be knocked off my motorcycle by a reckless or careless driver but this has happened to me twice in 30 years of riding. I ride up to 30,000 miles a year (the average for a biker is 5,000). Thus I consider that the increased risk of rider error caused by wearing overheating leathers is more than balanced by the lowered risk of not getting into an accident in the first place.

It is a common misconception that a bikers leathers protect from most injuries. In fact the sole injuries they protect one from are abrasion and occasionally (if the suit is well armoured) a broken elbow/kneecap. I have never in my riding history heard of any biker injured beyong repair by abrasion.

Fine.ill pass that on to my sister in June.

By the way, she has winter and summer gear. Winter gear is full leather. Summer is lighter and kevlar armoured.

I believe in personal responsibility. Helmet and gloves are compulsory but all safety equipment is discussed when a person sits CBT. The benefits and risks are clear. If people choose not to go for full leathers that is their choice and they should be allowed to make it.

Personally, I wear armoured textiles as does my husband, and he also has leathers for when it's dry, but am comfortable riding (Suzuki SV650 - hubby rides 1000cc Honda CBR) in jeans, but always with proper boots.

Jareth - I also got pulled out on a lot by drivers who didn't see me on my morning commute (school run range rovers I'm afraid to say.) Wearing a hi-vis helped a bit but what really made a huge difference was fitting an incredibly antisocial sporting exhaust.

No-one pulls out on you when they think a Lancaster bomber is making an emergency landing in the high street

I think bikers as a whole tend to be against ever-more compulsion for safety equipment several reasons.

First is sheer personal choice - you make a clear choice to ride a bike and you accept that it's a risky thing to do. It's a well-known fact that bike riding is dangerous (although horse riding is much more dangerous and not many people know that)

Second, if full leathers (or equivalent) were compulsory then there would need to be some certification system to make sure that the leathers you're buying are any good. Cheap leathers can be too thin and the stitching too weak to actually offer any real increase in protection. But that could cause real problems for the bespoke leather manufacturers.

Finally, a lot of bikers I know view any such moves with a lot of suspicion. There have been attempts to introduce compulsory leg protectors on bikes (crash bars on the side of the bike that take the impact if the bike goes down on its side). Which sounds great, but the actual testing showed an increased risk of the biker being trapped on the bike in the case of a crash which resulted in worse injuries. Despite this, the DoT were all for it at one point and it took a lot of effort to get it cancelled.

My brother just got a moped for his 16th birthday as it seems to be all the rage here for them to have them and go around together.

We were really shocked at the driving lessons they are given before passing and gaining a licence! ONE 3 hour lesson and he was road safe

When he bought he got it he went and bought himself a helmet and nothing else because that is what everyone else wears but my mum made him get a jacket, gloves and steel toe boots that heneeds for college anywhere. It is shocking how easy amd quick it is to get yourself up and going on one of those things!

After reading this my opinions have changed, I thought yes they should be made compulsory however the comment 'I think if you're stupid enough to ride without it then you deserve everything you get' is correct. In the CBT you are told how to be safe, it's your choice to be an idiot ignore it.

I shudder everytime I pass someone in short and t-shirts. When I got my bike I bought a jacket for £90 that could keep me safe and warm in the winter, but more importantly cool in the summer (removable padding but kevlar plates in the back/arms).

Whenever I see someone in shorts and t-shirts I remember that classic episode of 'Superstars' (not showing my age here, I've seen a repeat - honest!) when Kevin Keegan falls off his racer bike and skinned his arms and legs. I remember thinking if thats the damage a pushbike can do, imagine falling off a motorbike! Gravel is a bitch to get out. All I know is that when I fell off (car didn't see me so I swerved in the rain) I escaped with a ripped coat, and grazing to the kevlar but no real injury to me.

Mamadiva - he did not get his licence following a 3 hour lesson. That was simply his CBT which allows him to ride on L plates. The bike licence is far harder than the car licence and involves a theory test and two separate practical tests.

A CBT should be a full day, not 3 hours and includes a full discussion of safety gear.

And if he thinks it's cool to ride around in shorts, ask him which is cooler:

This: m.flickr.com/#/photos/prestonrolls/2999024676/

Or this:
www.zastavki.com/pictures/1680x1050/2010/Motocycles_Triumph_Bikes_Triumph_Speed_Triple_2010_023020_.jpg

If he's aspiring to the latter, and I hope he is, then he needs to learn about safety now, not when he comes off his first 'proper' bike doing 60.

I have ridden since I was 17 and my DP since he was 16, our families both ride and over 50% of my friends ride or go pillion.
I have love and lost my best friend (he was 19) when a car pulled out on him (wear full leathers and a minutes drive from the hospital) so totally understand that full kit is not always going to help. I have scars and lasting damage to my shoulder and legs after 2 accidents myself even though I was wearing the full kit.
I know the risks and chose to ride with full kit and respect an ADULTS personal choice to not to.

However I think is also the up to the parents of the 16 year old's on scooters to make there Children (under 18's) to wear the full kit and not just hoping the a helmet and CBT will protect them. for my 17th birthday I got a full set of leather and good helmet not my bike I brought that later.

"And if he thinks it's cool to ride around in shorts, ask him which is cooler"

I saw the photo's, nothing he has said pertains to "cool" as being a fashion choice, I think you need to re-read it. His point is wholey about safety. I am now slightly worried that you are thinking ones appearance is more important than ones safety. He certainly doesn't.

Abrasion? Is that what you call skin, muscle and bone being ripped off along the road?

OP- YANBU, I used to do RTA claims and hated the motorcycle ones, I can't remember a single one where it was the motorcyclists fault.

Although I agree that safety gear is important, a line has to be drawn somewhere. So if leathers are compulsory, how about back protectors, crash bars, airbags, roll cages... It's got to be up to the individual to make an informed choice.
Personally I never ride without proper boots gloves and jacket, usually leather trousers but maybe armoured jeans in the summer on short rides for overheating reasons.
As for the under 16s, the law says they are old enough to take responsibility. I don't agree, I think 16 is too young, but that is what the law says and if someone can't be trusted to wear decent shoes on a moped without mummy's supervision, they sure as hell can't be trusted to ride it in public.

Hogsback, where I live, the CBT IS a full day thing, not 3 hrs.

You pay the fee, they don't pass you if you don't meet their standard.

If a day isn't long enough, they make you go back the next day (no extra charge) till they're happy you're at the level thay want before they issue the CBT cert.

My lad's 19, has a bike, 125cc. He's got full protective gear and won't go out without it.

I think seatbelts aren't compulsory because they might save your life, I think they are compulsory because you'll kill anyone in front of you as you're ejected from the car at high speed. If someone comes off a bike and isn't wearing protective clothes, they're not putting passers-by at any more risk, ifyswim. Of course the fact that seatbelts will boost your chances in an accident is good, and I feel the same about protective clothing.

I often wonder about the legislation for this, I have to say. I think it would be tricky to administer but I think perhaps something should be done about it to prevent idiots riding about in flipflops, shorts and t-shirts/open shirts, as we see fairly frequently in Australia. I don't know what though! As someone upthread has already said - where does it stop?

Am utterly that anyone is moronic enough to move footrests on a motorbike to allow a 3yo to ride pillion dressed minimally - that should be a criminal offence! Attempted murder, perhaps? (OK, I know I'm overreacting but come on! Criminal negligence at the least.)

If you're standing in a position where you are at serious risk of being hit by an unbelted car occupant being catapulted out at you, you are much more at risk of being hit by the car itself.

Thinking about it further, compulsory leathers would also be legally tricky for visitors from jurisdictions that don't have that law. Imagine a French biker coming over on a ferry. What's she supposed to do - buy ?500 of leathers (that she is otherwise not compelled to own) before she leaves French soil even though it may well not have the "UK Approved Leathers" stamp, or hope that she can find a motorcycle shop within walking distance of Dover harbour that has her size?

I think the EU has laws against making it difficult to travel from one member country to another.

Luckily I didn't see the motorbike accident that happened a few cars in front of me in the fast lane of the motorway, in the dark a few weeks ago. The driver can't have been wearing reflective clothing as I didn't see him, I just saw the bike spinning in the road. The van in front of me stopped to clear the road. A car behind me - where I presume the driver was - stopped. I got to work 30 mins later in shock and crying. (I am pregnant but also would be useless in a major accident anyway as i will faint at the sight of blood)

I spent hours on the internet that evening trying to find out what had happened and was forced to conclude the rider had not died, as it was not reported on the local news.

Motorbikes are more dangerous, and they are not always ridden very sensibly - people weaving in and out of traffic at rush hour for example. That said, my Dad was in a major car accident which was not his fault, so I know often people are just unlucky.

I think there should be a law about what bikers wear to make sure they are visible and at least are wearing some sort of approved safety gear - whether that is leathers or something thinner in hot weather. I am quite happy I did not see the biker splatted on the motorway - but I should have done.

Just because a biker should wear clothing that will protect them in an accident (and I don't think there is all that much dispute about that), it does not follow that the law should compel them to do so.

If I choose to put myself at greater risk by not wearing leathers (I don't ride so the point is moot) then it is no-one's business but my own. I certainly have no responsibility to ensure that no-one is exposed to the sight of me "splatted on the motorway". If we were to go down that road, heaven knows where it would lead.

Someone further back the thread asked why, if seatbelts are compulsory, bike leathers are not. The answer, imo, is that seatbelts probably ought not to be compulsory. (don't misunderstand me - I always wear mine and will insist on everyone in my car belting up). In practice, I would not abolish the law on seatbelts but I certainly don't think we should be adding any more "for your own good" type laws.

Underachieving - the "cool" thing was not aimed at your DH, it was aimed at Mamadiva, or rather at her DB. I don't agree with your DH's opinion, but I do respect it - after all he rides 3 times as many miles in a year that I do - I only commute 200 miles a week.

betty - yup, CBT is a full day where I live too, which is why I was very suprised at Mamadiva saying it was only 3 hours for her DB. I think there are a lot of training outfits that cut corners when it comes to scoots and 'peds.

I think so too Hogs.

DP was very surprised (he's from dahn sarf, we're oop norf) when I said the lad was there a full day and still no CBT cert.......

He's a fully flegged Bikey man, has a full license and has held it for years, he got his CBT in 2 hours when he was a lad and was expecting my boy to be there half a day at most..........

Underachieving: I've re-read your post and a couple of things have lead me to believe that you are not in the UK - you are stating temps in F, and the fact that your DH believes temps in leathers can reach 110F in slow moving traffic. Trust me, the chance of this happening in the UK is close to zero

Nope hogsback, we're both definately British and have never lived outside of this country. He naturally thinks in F because he's older and that was what they taught in schools pre-1970's. It was also late and he'd been out working so he not only couldn't be bothered to self-censor he was too tired to remember the exact percentages of brain fuctioning loss too. As it was his arguement to make I didn't interfere. But we're both British and have always lived in Britian. He in fact has never ridden outside of the UK.

Friend of mine was wearing full leathers and protective gear when he skidded and crashed the motorbike into a tree. He now has one and a half legs. Don't think the leathers helped. The point being- if you are concerned about your safety- don't ride them in the first place.