What if the law went further than just helmets?

Message

Keyoke · #1 Unread post by **Keyoke** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:04 am

So, we've talked quite a lot about whether or not Helmets should be mandatory wear everywhere.

A thought just occured to me - how long will it be before the governments decide to go an extra step and start making the rest of the gear a legal requirement, too. Such as leather or armoured jacket, gloves, trousers etc....?

How would this impact your riding?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:33 am

Or, limitations on engine size?
Who knows what the lawmakers with grab onto as the next "cause"?

Keyoke · #3 Unread post by **Keyoke** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:37 am

DustyJacket wrote:Or, limitations on engine size?
Who knows what the lawmakers with grab onto as the next "cause"?

to an extent, engine size has been done here already - age 16 - 50cc max, age 17 - 125cc on CBT, then max of 33.5 bhp for 2 yrs

#4 Unread post by **Skier** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:06 am

I'm on the fence for engine size restrictions, so I don't want to commit to one side or the other, in the US.

However, I think mandating some kind of protection besides a helmet is a good idea. Having the government approve crash gear the way they do helmets doesn't sound like a bad idea at all to me. However, as a downside, I fear it might be a slippery slope - if they can say what jackets we can and can't wear, what about pants? Boots? Gloves? How would it be enforced? I don't want to be pulled over because an officer thinks I'm not wearing approved gear (actually, I don't want to be pulled over at all...

).

I honestly think the quality of safety gear would go up if there was government testing, but it might not be worth the risk of more and more lawmaking regarding bikes, done by people who don't ride... it's just a recipe for distaster.

Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:00 pm

...AND THEN, THEY'LL WANT CLEAN UNDERWEAR......

High_Side · #6 Unread post by **High_Side** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:36 pm

This is a slippery slope that we don't wanna start to slide. I'm a big fan of the proper gear but I have been caught where it is SO hot that I can't take it anymore and the safest thing for me to do is to remove my jacket and ride extra cautious. Somewhere along the way, personal judgement has to come in to play.....

pinger05 · #7 Unread post by **pinger05** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 7:25 pm

On a military installation you are required to wear a helmet (no mater what the host state thinks about it) and you are required to wear boots, long pants, long sleves, and gloves.

If we instituted something like that in most states there would be an outright revolt. Us military folk just say "Yes sir, may I have another".

Nibblet99 · #8 Unread post by **Nibblet99** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 1:42 am

DustyJacket wrote:...AND THEN, THEY'LL WANT CLEAN UNDERWEAR......

Well it would make life more pleasant for the A&E hospital workers

Ladymx · #9 Unread post by **Ladymx** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:38 am

High_Side wrote:This is a slippery slope that we don't wanna start to slide. I'm a big fan of the proper gear but I have been caught where it is SO hot that I can't take it anymore and the safest thing for me to do is to remove my jacket and ride extra cautious. Somewhere along the way, personal judgement has to come in to play.....

I have to agree here as Ive had to gear down in extreme heat or pass out. Id rather gear downa nd be more cautious, but I know anything can happen no matter how cautious I am.

Keyoke · #10 Unread post by **Keyoke** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:16 am

I can see advantages as well as disadvantages to this - but either way, i'm sure that sooner or later it is going to happen. It just depends on exactly how it is implemented - it may just be that kit is optional, but kit has to meet certain requirements (similar to dot etc)

i suppose we'll just have to wait and see