thought experiment

I was thinking about one of the perennial disagreements, the one
about protective gear.

Everyone makes their own decision about it, decides what the level of
risk they see is, and then minimises that risk enough that it is worth
the reward they feel they get.

Because everyone's risk *and* reward calculations are different, everyone
gets different answers,

I was pondering what would were the factors I was thinking about, what
my calculations were.

Suppose certain levels of protective gear were mandated - you had to
wear that *and no other*. No less, no more. What would change about
your motorcycling?

If the level was jeans and denim jacket or shirtsleeves, open face helmet,
what would change about your riding?

Me, I'd ride less at night on bikes without good weather protection,
and very little in winter if it looked wet. Summer, I'd risk the wet.

If I could add some kind of wets, but not more armour or crash protection,
I don't think my riding would change.

On the other hand, if full one piece leathers and fullface helmet and
armoured boots was mandated, I would ride in the wet a bit more than I
would if only denim and no wents - but only a bit, sodden leathers are
dreadful things - but in the heat a lot less. I'd also find commuting
a hell of a hassle, and most casual rides ditto. So my riding would
decrease a lot more than it would with the first scenario.

Would it decrease enough, or make riding unpleasant enough that I would
let it interfere? I think I'm old enough now to say yes Time was
that *nothing* would stop me riding, now I think that having to struggle
into 1 piece leathers every day would stop most of it. I might do more
fanging, but less riding overall.

So my risk/reward calculations are much more about comfort on the bike
than about crash protection, which points to me not expecting to crash
in a way that makes good crash protection important. So I assign a low
value to the reward of safety from crash injury through gear, and a high
value to the reward of being comfortable on and off the bike. I assign
a low risk value to crash injury - I don't think I'll get hurt badly -
and a high risk value to discomfort and hassle - I think I'd be very
uncomfortable in full kit.

So I think the chance of crashing badly enough that good gear is
essential is low, or else that gear won't make much difference in
crashes. And that my riding is very focused on day to day work,
either commuting or touring, not much fanging,

How will those two scenarios affect other people's riding?

Zebee

 

I understand that the current thinking by the un-elected non-bikeriding
bureaucrats is a minimum of compulsory Boots, Long trousers, Helmet, Jacket
and Gloves. No maximums are currently being considered.

Whilst in 99% of situations this would not change my riding too much it is
really designed to top up the fine revenue lost by motorcyclists sticking to
the speed limit.

Boxer

 

N/A

My freedom to ride a motorcycle in whateverthebloodyhell I want is not
negotiable.

Doug Cox.
Work to ride, Ride to work...

 

Wouldn't change the (minimal) frequency of my riding on the road, I'd
just be doing it both unroadworthily *and* unprotectionworthily...

Charlie

 

'if full one piece leathers and fullface helmet and

by the expense.

Brett
R80

 

.. Since I'm a "safety-nazi", there's no riding without

Ever been to Townsville?

Aaron
ZX6R
Squid 'cause I'd die of heat otherwise.

 

SNIP

Most probably nothing. Since I'm a "safety-nazi", there's no riding without
bike-boots/ CE-kitted jacket with decent back protector and leather pants
with pads.
Helmet/proper gloves go without saying. Seen too much to NOT appreciate the
protection provided by such stuff. had personal experience, too..

Yep, wouldn't ride in that sorta gear. Wouldn't go diving with a coke-bottle
of compressed air and rubber hose stuck in my mouth either.


SNIP

Don't really agree with the one-piece leathers either, would most probably
ride less in the really hot weather then.

Value comfort too and don't "expect to crash"...BUT...they're called
ACCIDENTS, not "planned crashes".
Personal comfort is important for riding, but should only go so far.

SNIP

Either you've been lucky in the past ("soft-dumps") or you've never had a
prang of any sort yet.
Personally I wouldn't mind some legislation regarding safety-gear for
riders. Jeans/denim jackets and sneakers/ hiking boots shouldn't even be
mentioned.
Obviously there should be concessions for people like farmers and the like,
but even there, gloves, helmet and some basic stuff should be compulsory.

If things like basic armour etc. would be compulsory, prices for items
wouldn't rise (or only for the short term), we've seen the same stuff with
car-pricing etc. air-con and stereos are stock items even on cheapies
nowadays, without added (real) cost. The manufacturers could if they wanted,
but why should they if they don't have to...

cheers
pete

 

That's what people used to say about helmets!
Clem
[I reckon I'd give it away and go live up a tree somewhere if I'm gonna' be
forced to wear a kevlar clown-suit to ride to the shops]

 

To me, this is an issue where it is impossible to come up with a "one size
fits all" solution, even on an individual basis - so how could anyone ever
hope to develop a minimum standard for all riders everywhere? Even if
politicians decided they had to act, they'd quickly abandon the idea once
they realised the myriad variables they would have to consider. They might
go so far as to make gloves and boots (minimum ankle length) compulsory, but
even if they wanted to make trousers and jackets compulsory too, how on
earth would they determine what would be an acceptable minimum, given the
huge variation in climatic conditions that they would need to consider?

For me, I consider the weather and the type of riding I am intending to do,
and clothe myself in what I consider to be the appropriate manner. In
summer, when riding around town only (max speed limit 70kph around here),
boots, gloves, jeans and draggin' jacket are standard. If I'm going out for
a 'proper' ride through the twisties, or going somewhere via the highway,
then I'll still wear the dri-riders even in summer (after taking out the
liners of course!) - and this is as much a comfort issue as a safety one,
since even though it is hotter overall, the dri-riders dont flap around at
speed like the draggin' jacket tends to. In winter, its the dri-riders
everywhere, simply because it's too bloody cold without them, along with as
many layers of clothes underneath as are required to keep warm. In winter,
there's no need for additional wet weather protection, as the dri-riders do
an awesome job, but in summer I use a dri-rider rainsuit (one of those
one-piece step-into jobs) over the jeans/jacket.

Basically, for all the talk about mandating minimum 'protective gear'
standards for bikes, it would a legislative nightmare to try and implement,
and for that reason I don't think we will ever see significant changes
(beyond what I mentioned above, ie. gloves, boots etc). Politicians want to
be seen to be doing work, but they don't like to actually DO work, and this
would just be too hard for them to come up with a workable solution while
not actually doing anything about it. They'll make some noise, make one or
two minor changes (maybe), and that will be it. This is an issue that has
lived in the "too hard" basket for a very long time already, and there it
shall stay for a very long time to come.

Perhaps the closest they could come to a compulsory minimum, beyond what
they already have, is to legislate against riding in a certain way without a
minimum level of gear. For instance, around town shorts/t-shirt may be
legally okay, but on roads with a limit greater than 80kph they might
require full body coverage. This gets around the problems for people just
riding casually down the street to the shops, but still requires protection
for those riding at high speeds. I don't know if even this would be
practical, but I suspect that it is something like the option they would
have to go with if they did in fact decide to do more. Anything else, such
as requiring minimum gear across the board for all conditions, just would
not work.

Damien
GPX250 (stolen) -> CBR600

 

But I only spent 2K on my bike, so an additional 1.5K is BIG drama!
Bikes aren't just a flashy, luxury item for some of us; they're an
essential tool.
Clem

 

Competition in the accessories market would be so hot on those items, prices
wouldn't go up, rather the opposite.
Would possibly take some of the fashion-pricing out of the market as well...
Then again, if you can spent the dough on a bike, you can spent it on safety
gear as well.
Spent 10k on a bike, spent 1.5k on gear, is that a drama?
If you can't afford the gear on top of the bike you want, buy a cheaper bike
or stay off bikes altogether.

pete

 

Yep...and it can get hot and muggy down here as well.
T-shirt underneath, liner out, jacket half open,
gloves/helmet/boots/Draggins.
Ridden plenty of long trips in HOT weather with the juice running down the
legs inside the leather pants, uncomfortable sure...but that's the game.
Seen too many accidents, don't care about some sweat. Frequent stops and a
Camel-pack can do wonders.
pete

 

If the level was jeans and denim jacket or shirtsleeves, open face

if this was the minimum...nothing
this is what i usually ride in
if this was the maximum...it'd get a bit cold sometimes
for many years i wore full kit everywhere, cos i crashed wearing thongs,
shorts, shirt, and it was not pleasant...a coupla years back i was fortunate
enough to be wearing jacket, boots, jeans, FF etc when i crashed...and it
was much better than it otherwise would have been
if a full suit was mandated i would ride a lot less...and given that, the
bike would lose its practicality as transport, and i'd probably give it
away...not worth paying the rego for the 2 weeks a year it would get used
maybe this is what the powers that be want...obviously zebee has this idea
from somewhere
but in the end it doesnt matter...what will be will be...
apathetic you say, well if someone has a protest i might go, but i'm not
about to put my life into organising the movement
its just another law to save you from yourself, thats where all this
speeding, helmets, swimming pool fences etc starts
and they will attach medical requirements to it as well, if you crash
without mandated safety gear, no medical for you sonny
i guess when it happens i will say...at least i have lived in an age with a
bit of freedom...and if the younger folk dont realise they are missing
something then they will be perfectly happy

 

Well Doug, a certain level has been mandated. Do you comply and only
ride whilst wearing a helmet? If you do but sometimes wish you didn't
have to then you've already negotiated or compromised.

 

Pardon me for not opposing compulsory helmets but I was only 10 at the time.

Besides, I don't regard helmets as clothing...

Doug Cox.
Work to ride, Ride to work...

 

Scars show that at least good boots and gloves are wise. Still wearing
an open face helmet and old goggles, which is stupid after scraping the
face at the ton once and 80mph once. Choose or be a cripple or a
vegetable or die.

 

<snip>

It wouldn't worry me, since I dress to avoid pain as much as comfort and my
wallet will allow. That's Draggin Jeans with Tiger Angel knee-pads inside
the kevlar, good boots, good gloves, synthetic jacket with CE armour and
extra back protector.

Others should be free to dress however they want

What *would* worry me is another layer of regulation, which would require
another bunch of bureaucrats to ensure compliance, and another bunch of
bureaucrats to assess the results, and another bunch of bureaucrats to
process the fines for non-compliance, and another bunch of bureacrats
(funded by the fines) to conduct an investigation into standardised tyre
specifications, etc etc etc.

 

Heh... at the time they did. Don't you remember the NHRLO ? pronounced
nilro?


Geoff and Jodie

 

I can't see them mandating a _maximum_ leval of protective gear.

The minimum if it ever happens would probably be similar to the vic roads
recommendations of full face helmet, motorcycle jacket (either synthetic or
leather), long pants (bike pants not specified) and leather boots and
gloves.

That wouldn't effect me much, since the only time I ride with less than that
is when just ducking down to the corner shop.


Geoff and Jodie

 

Is there an Australian Standard for bike safety gear, other than for
helmets? If the government were to make safety gear compulsory, there would
have to be Australian Standards for each and every item, in order to ensure
that it met the governments standard for minimum levels of safety (otherwise
people could just chuck on any old jacket, and claim they are meeting the
minimum safety requirements). Since it is a cost that manufacturers don't
currently have, prices will rise as the compliance costs are factored in.
Yes, manufacturers do currently test their products, but not according to
any official standards, and there would likely be significant costs involved
with modifying their testing procedures to meet such standards. If nothing
else, there would be the costs of simply having to fill out so much more
paperwork for the government to show how safe their gear is.

It would be doubtful there would be a significant drop in prices due to more
people buying gear, since most people have it already - they just choose not
to wear it (for whatever reason). There will undoubtably be _some_ increase
in people buying gear, just not enough to significantly affect prices. And
certainly not enough to offset the cost increases of compliance with the new
standards that would have to be introduced. Of course, people would likely
have to go and buy new gear anyway, since their old gear wouldn't legally
meet the standards, but this would be offset by manufacturers having to
throw away all products made but not sold that also didn't legally meet the
standards.

Which brings up the potential issue of compensation to manufacturers and
owners for the tens of millions of dollars of existing safety gear that
would be rendered illegal upon introduction of such legislation, due to
their non-compliance with the new Australian Standards for those items.

And regardless of what happened to prices, we'd have several years advance
notice before the introduction of such legislation anyway. It takes time to
develop standards, and more time to develop testing procedures to measure
compliance with the standards (not to mention all the time required to
determine what sort of gear was going to be required in the first place!),
not to mention the establishment of the required bureaucracy to oversee the
whole process. And then once that is all done, manufacturers need to be
given sufficient time to test their products to ensure compliance, as well
as time to manufacture sufficient quantities to meet the demand that may be
created by the introduction of the legislation. And until we can all walk
into any bike store and buy head-to-toe safety gear that complied with
relevant Australian Standards, there is no way the government could even
consider making the wearing of such gear compulsory.

When you look at it like that, it hardly seems like an issue that we'll need
to worry about for quite some time, if ever. I think that once the
government takes a good hard look at it (if they ever get that far on the
issue!), they'll quickly decide it's just not worth worrying about after
all - too much time, too much money.

Damien
GPX250 (stolen) -> CBR600