Home
Ren's Biking Blog
All The Gear All The Time
Blog Date - 05 March 2014
It's a big debate for those who ride powered two wheelers. Should you, do you ride with full protective clothing at all times and in all weather?
I do. That's my personal choice. I wear...ahem...
At least a motorcycle jacket
At least motorcycle pants
At least sturdy boots
Motorcycle gloves
Kneepads
Back protector
The helmet is a requirement of the UK law.
Visible and protective clothing, the boys in blue set a good example to us all?
Typically I have motorcycle pants over jeans or sturdy trousers. I nearly always have on a bright hi-viz jacket or waistcoat. I wear motorcycle boots but sometimes I'll wear strong leather walking boots. I have a selection of gloves but they're all motorcycle gloves.
I often get ridiculed for my excessive safety gear. That's fine, I don't mind. I know that 12 years ago I had safety gear on when I crashed. Today as a result of that I have scars and one leg shorter than the other but without the safety gear I'd be at least missing a leg if not deceased. Now safety gear is absolutely NO guarantee of survival but I firmly believe it helps and it also helps lessen injuries. As such I make my choice to wear all my gear all the time.
Hi Viz raises a lot of questions. Some people view it as a waste of time, that car drivers will still pull out on you even if they have seen you. Speaking from experience I know that is indeed a fact. My thinking is firstly give other road users the best chance to see you, not everyone is actually out to kill you. If some tosspot does see you and still pulls out on you and wipes you out then you have not provided them with an excuse. An investigating police officer will look more favourably on the biker if he's as bright as a beacon and less favourably on the driver if he claims "I didn't see him". I reckon that will apply to the insurance company too.
There are many ways to get noticed on the road...
But...should all this be law, like helmets? You know, as much as I'm into safety, as much as I'm into hi-viz, slowing down and careful motorcycling, I don't want it to be law.
The helmet law is a law to protect me from myself. Why? I'm allowed to smoke, drink myself into oblivion, eat all the wrong foods and injure myself doing sports. If I so desire I can choose to take my own life. And yet I am not allowed to decide whether or not I wear a helmet on a motorcycle. I personally would choose to wear a helmet in the same way I choose to wear all the other gear, but I don't have that choice. If the powers that be decide to enforce hi-viz protective and approved motorcycle clothing then I have another liberty taken away from me, another choice.
Are people too stupid to decide for themselves? Perhaps. When I see youths whizzing around on scooters with shorts and a helmet I wince and curse their foolishness. When I see super-sport motorcyclists wearing flip flops and Chinos I want to slap them into reality. I can't, the law protects them from my opinion. And so it should. Because much as I disagree and hate their choice it is their choice. They are, in the eyes of the law, adults making up their own mind. I smoked for years, how many people cursed me for my stupidity of slowly poisoning myself?
What about those who have to fix up the battered, broken and mangled bikers? It's a very fair point. Who cares for the brain injured, the crippled and limbless? The more risk you take without protective gear the more likely you are to be a burden to the government, society and family. I know, I was a burden for some time after my accident, luckily I've recovered. Then if we force motorcyclists to gear up or even stop riding then ought we not force skiers to stop skiing? Make skateboarders skate only on padded surfaces? Make all rugby players wear American football padding and helmets and ban tackling? Where do we draw the lines?
I'd NEVER ride like this, but should we be free to choose so?
I shall continue to wear all the gear all the time. I shall curse those who choose not to. I shall sweat buckets at traffic light on those rare summer days. I fear my choices being made into law though. It's only a short step then to banning motorcycles. Then it's only a short step to banning anything more dangerous than pillow fighting. And that will still require full CE approved safety gear. Under strict government guidelines. Only at approved venues. Only supervised by trained and qualified staff. Only if you sign a disclaimer. Only if you're insured. And so on...
Reader's Comments
Linda Atkinson said :-
Good advice
01/01/2000 00:00:00 UTC
john de ville said :-
All good points there Ren, For many years when riding the vespas I would only wear Dr martin boots, Levi jeans, fred perry polo shirt, and a MI style green bomber jacket with usually an open face helmet. I suppose I was very lucky in the thirty odd years riding like that.
But since I got the bike im totaly different. I have as much protective gear on as I can including a police motor cycle coat, full chest and back protector underneath and protective pants and biker boots. At one time I would just shove my helmet on bomber jacket on, DMs on go outside, kick the scooter up and off I would go in a matter of mins...........now it takes up to 20 mins to get ready even before I put the key in the bike and start her up. It is a bit of a pain at times but its what I choose to do if all that gear should one day save me from at least road rash.
01/01/2000 00:00:00 UTC
GJ said :-
I emailed you about a topic but should have done a search.
My thoughts regarding gear.
I'm firmly in the ATGATT camp.
This is due to it being out of your control when you are going to drop or have an accident on the motorcycle.
You really want to give yourself the best chance to avoid or limit injuries.
Anytime I ride the motorcycle it's :-
Gloves (Proper Armoured Gloves with protection for knuckles and fingers)
Jacket (Back, Elbow and Shoulder Armour and Abrasion Resistant Fabric)
Trousers (Knee Armour and Abrasion Resistant Fabric)
Full Face Helmet
Boots (Waterproof with built in protection for Ankle area)
I have heard the arguments:-
1) I'm such a good rider that it will not happen to me. (Someone may have an accident that you have no fault in but are still a participant.)
2) Too warm with all the gear on. (Remove the lining etc)
3) It's too expensive. ( Don't even think of buying a motorcycle without counting the cost of gear)
On a day to day basis I have seen plenty of riders on sportsbikes in trainers and joggers over the last few months.
On a couple of occasions wearing shorts !!!!
Other commuters wearing hoodies and cargo/combat pants but without armour.
Scooter riders also dressed in unsuitable gear.
I have probably spent £600 on protective gear all in.
They offer reasonable protection for the money spent.
I have come off the motorcycle a couple of times at low speeds on black ice.
The safety gear has allowed me to walk away with a couple of bruises and nothing more.
01/09/2017 17:20:22 UTC
Borsuk said :-
I have just upgraded to an armoured undershirt and kneepads, they didnt have shorts available at the time, so my armour is next to my skin and not affected by how much clothing between my body and my jacket. I came off at moderate speed 2 months ago doing around 25 mph ish and although there was no visible bruising on my body there was deep bruising to my shoulder hip and knee area. About 1 hour after the fall my right leg could no longer support my weight and I had 3 days in bed resting before being able to hirple around. It was over a month before I was able to walk properly and go up stairs normally. I believe my armour saved me from much more serious damage but also I think it moved during the incident as I was not wearing as many layers of clothes as when I bought all my gear and it was a bit looser than normal. Thats why I have decided to move all my armour as close to my skin as possible.
The other advantage is I can wear what I like as outerwear without it having to be bike specific gear.
I live and work in hot countries and see people riding on poor roads wearing bikinis or swim shorts and flip flops and shudder to think of the result if they bounce down the road a few times. They don't seem to realise that the road becomes to all intents and purposes a cheese grater to flesh at any significant speed.
01/09/2017 19:05:46 UTC
Ren - The Ed said :-
GJ. I got your email and I was about to reply when I read this. Please don't be afraid of starting a new thread. Subjects are always open to being updated with new ideas and opinions put forward. Just because I've covered a topic previously it doesn't mean it ought not to be covered again.
I'm still in a perpetual quandary. I will always put on my minimum gear whatever the weather but I also *mostly* think we should allow people to choose. There are those I occasionally come across whom leave me wondering if they have enough intelligence to make such decisions, never-the-less they are adults and have as much right to decide as anyone else.
Finding the right gear is another thing we must all decide. I'm with Borsuk - some gear doesn't fit just so and can leave padding in the wrong place. That's the advantage of body armour such as the motocross riders wear, it tends to be attached to the body and not the clothing. John-De-Ville wears a body suit under whatever he chooses and it works well for him.
01/09/2017 19:22:49 UTC
Ian Soady said :-
Hmmmm.....
I find myself at variance yet again.
After 50 years of motorcycling, there are three things I will not ride (on the road) without:
Helmet (open face), gloves and boots. Of course all jackets these days have armour so that is inescapable but for many years my jacket was an original type Belstaff with no armour or padding. Gloves because a bee, flying stone or the like can easily cause a loss of control. Helmet because if the worst does happen it's my brain I'm really bothered about. Open face because I can see and hear better, can feel the wind on my face and am not claustrophobic (plus see four below). Boots because even a car park tumble can trap your ankle underneath.
Some people will call this irresponsible. My rationale has several components:
One is that it is far more important to be comfortable than to protect yourself against the small chance of coming off the bike. I once had a pair of leather trousers that I wore for one tour in France. They were so uncomfortable and restricting that after 2 days they were banished to the top box (and very inconvenient that was). If you're uncomfortable then that will always interfere with what should be your main concern which is avoiding a crash in the first place. It's called primary safety.
Second is the risk compensation factor. If you're covered with high tech collision protection you may think (or worse feel subconsciously) that you're safer. This can lead to taking more risks as "well, if I come off I'll be safe anyway". Which of course is false. It's analogous to the view that hi-viz clothing will somehow protect you from people not seeing you. No it won't.
Three: I want to be in a position to just jump on the bike and ride it whenever the whim takes me. If I need to spend 10 minutes getting dressed up I'm less likely to do that. And if I stop for a coffee I want to look like a normal person not an alien. And where do you put all that stuff if you want to wander round a market or stroll down that inviting riverside footpath?
Which brings me on to four: dressing up as if you're expecting a crash may (and I'm not aware of any research here) treat you as being less vulnerable. An open face helmet and relatively normal clothing may just remind other road users that you are a human being like them. Or not......
Five: It's my choice. As I say, I've been riding like this for 50 years. I've had a few spills and still have intermittent pain in one shoulder from one (about 30 years ago). But that hasn't changed my mind.
People often say (as above) "well, if I hadn't had the gear on it would have been much worse". How do you know? Have a look at Tour de France riders descending some of the Alpine passes. They're doing 60 mph or more on skinny tyres, often on slippery roads, protected only by a thin layer of Lycra. And very few are killed even when the worst happens - as it often does - see some of the crashes in this year's event. Broken collar bones are the most common injury even when someone slams into a rock face and is then run over several times.
I'm not saying anyone SHOULDN'T wear whatever they like, and if it suits you to cover yourself with leather and padding then please do so. What I object to is the attitude that anyone who doesn't follow this "wisdom" is foolish.
02/09/2017 10:04:12 UTC
Ian Soady said :-
No edit facility....
"dressing up as if you're expecting a crash may (and I'm not aware of any research here) treat you as being less vulnerable." should read "dressing up as if you're expecting a crash may lead other road users (and I'm not aware of any research here) treat you as being less vulnerable."
02/09/2017 10:06:43 UTC
GJ said :-
It's more the chino, jogger, shorts types that I think are being irresponsible.
I agree that something particularly uncomfortable will not be worn.
I don't really see taking 5-10 mins to "suit up" as an issue.
I don't set out on a ride expecting to crash.
02/09/2017 11:16:42 UTC
CrazyFrog said :-
I think that having spent a large part of my life being an active cyclist has coloured my judgement. Falling off a pushbike doing 35-40mph is something I've done several times, and I've always walked away. I always wear a helmet (I've cracked five of them over the years, both on the road and on cars that have hit me), but otherwise the protection from cycling gear is absolutely minimal.
On the bike for commuting duties, textile jacket, open face helmet, jeans, gloves and boots suffice. I'm with Ian as regards an open face lid. Wearing one greatly increases your field of vision which means that you are more likely to become aware of a hazard before you would be wearing a full face. Obviously, should you be unlucky enough to have an 'off' the the protection is not as good, but wearing one reduces the likelihood of having an accident in the first place.
The only time I wear full face is when going a long journey which involves a lot of high speed mileage on trunk roads.
04/09/2017 13:18:55 UTC
Ren - The Ed said :-
It is all down to personal experience I guess.
When I had my crash I broke my jaw in 3 places while wearing a full face helmet, I doubt I'd have a face otherwise. I was wearing a back protector, my mother said the only part of me that wasn't bruised was my back, she could see the outline of the protector. I had knee pads on yet my leg was shattered, I don't think I'd have a leg without them. And so on and so on.
For every example and experience there are correspondingly different examples and experiences. We all make our choices and we have to live with them accordingly.
I'm just glad I wasn't wearing the girlfriend's knickers on that day at least...
04/09/2017 21:55:30 UTC
Ian Soady said :-
I prefer to use real data rather than personal experience and anecdote.
This thread (of course) has led me to do some minimal research. The link below shows relative rates deaths (per million inhabitants) for all EU countries.
A higher proportion of pedestrians are killed than are motorcyclists (in all countries : UK is 6.3 vs 5.3). Perhaps we should insist that they wear full protective gear?
And interestingly, mopeds (whose riders are not noted for their protective clothing) have a very small death rate.
Food for thought?
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Road_accident_fatalities_-_...
05/09/2017 09:13:32 UTC
Sharon said :-
I for one am a supporter of all the gear all the time. I do so because I choose to do so. I do not preach to others as they can make their own choices. However if asked why I choose to wear protective gear my answer is simple..I wear it to do the best I can to be as safe as I can. I do not expect my high viz to guarantee I will be seen, but I believe it improves my chances of being seen. I do not wear body armour in the belief it will magically protect me but I believe it improves my chances of less serious injury in some instances.
My belief on the high viz is based simply on the fact I have eyes to see. When riding in a group the riders who stand out more and are easier to see are those wearing high viz. Nothing scientific about it just good old plain observation. As for body armour well it seems fairly obvious to me that any body part protected by armour would suffer less severe injury than those without. If the impact is hard enough no armour will save your life but on less harsh impact it could reduce the severity of an injury. I didn't do research to come to this conclusion, to be honest it just seemed like common sense.
However for those who like data rather than personal opinions I did a little research and subsequently found this article which may be of interest. (link below)
The study concludes while there are limits to the extent clothing can prevent injury in high impact crashes, it is in low impact crashes that protective clothing is thought to offer the greatest injury reduction. When garments included fitted body armour there was a significantly reduced risk of any injury. This included a reduced risk of any injury to the upper body by 23%, legs by 39%, hands by 45% and feet by 45%.
As a keen researcher I am aware that either side of any debate will be able to find data and statistics to support their own view.
www.georgeinstitute.org/sites/default/files/documents/motorcycle-protective-clot...
05/09/2017 21:09:34 UTC
Ian Soady said :-
Thanks Sharon that's interesting.
However, we will have to agree to differ. I still think it's far more important to avoid the collision in the first place (and the statistics cannot tell us anything about that). I fully agree it's an individual decision. What I do worry about is the feeling of invulnerability that some riders seem to have.
I wouldn't however wish to discourage anyone from wearing whatever they feel appropriate - I merely wish to point out that not everyone necessarily feels that heavy protective gear is necessary.
If someone has a spare couple of hundred pounds or so, I would suggest that some further training* ("advanced" is probably not the right term) might be a better purchase than a set of snazzy leathers.
*And by this I do not mean track days or similar. I've always believed that once a basic understanding of machine control and roadcraft is achieved that the major advantages come from changes in attitude. See Bob's recent posts on riding a lightweight in traffic.
06/09/2017 12:08:12 UTC
Ian Soady said :-
.... and on reading the report I find:
"Conflict between primary safety (accident avoidance) and secondary safety (injury protection) is associated with protective clothing in many industries. This is because the materials required to provide injury protection tend to be heavy and may negatively affect he operators' ability to perform safely (Nunneley and Myhre 1976, Bittelet al.1992, EEVC 1993, Koch 1996, James 2002). Earlier reports on motorcycle protective clothing cautioned that such materials may increase riders' crash risk due to discomfort and heat fatigue, however to date there does not appear to have been any research into this (EEVC 1993, Koch 1996)."
which is precisely (one of my) point(s).
However, notwithstanding this, it's all good stuff and I hope will lead people to think about what they do not just be dedicated followers of fashion.
06/09/2017 13:33:24 UTC
Name
Comment
Add a RELEVANT link (not required)
Upload an image (not required) -
Uploading...
Home
Ren's Biking Blog