DSA dictate what to wear on test

[Squashed_Fly]

Dave - I know, as I said, just playing devils advocate really. Dodn't mean that as a personal comment. We've all been out in times in stuff and though afterwards 'if I'd come off, I'd have been mincemeat', myself included so I can't judge.

But this thread wasn't about changing the law, it was about making sure people with no experience, at test stage, are making good and informed choices about what they wear.

But some peopl really do believe 'it's my body, my brain, my choice', and it should be that way. So long as your choices don't impact on anyone else if they go wrong. The moment they can or do, then it becomes more of a selfish protest, rather than thinking about those that have to deal with what's left afterwards. And that includes me, every time I decide to put someone else at risk, by not wearing the maximum amount of safety gear possible.

Hey, nobody is perfect, and if we were, what a boring world....

[470four]

Dave - I know, as I said, just playing devils advocate really. Dodn't mean that as a personal comment. We've all been out in times in stuff and though afterwards 'if I'd come off, I'd have been mincemeat', myself included so I can't judge.

But this thread wasn't about changing the law, it was about making sure people with no experience, at test stage, are making good and informed choices about what they wear.

But some peopl really do believe 'it's my body, my brain, my choice', and it should be that way. So long as your choices don't impact on anyone else if they go wrong. The moment they can or do, then it becomes more of a selfish protest, rather than thinking about those that have to deal with what's left afterwards. And that includes me, every time I decide to put someone else at risk, by not wearing the maximum amount of safety gear possible.

Hey, nobody is perfect, and if we were, what a boring world....

If we were, we would all ride BMW's...

We can only set a good example to little-bike riders as to the correct attire? They can only look up to us as a possible role model - if they saw Kevin blatting around on his 'blade wearing a t-shirt & no gloves then the jacket will stay at home the next day etc.

[Dabz]

My take on the "it's my body, my life" would be "yes and it's my taxes paying to scoop you up and try to put you back together again".

[Mark_Able]

Again, I'm playing devils advocate a bit. Where do we stop, as to what is acceptable? I personally wouldn't be caught dead wearing an open-face helmet. Now that comment might have got you thinking. Where is the facial protection? Years ago at CSM, an instructor of mine nearly lost the best part of his face in an accident, because his face hit the bike screen just below his bottom lip. He was left with a large scar, but it would've been far worse if he'd been travelling at speed. Any exposed skin is dangerous. We do our best to educate, right from element A on the CBT. But for years we've had to accept that not everyone is in a position to buy decent kit. We have had to accept the bare minimum. We are not the law, and the law doesn't support us. We use common sense as to what is acceptable. Part of the problem from our point of view, is jobsworth examiners taking the wording too literally. They do not excercise common sense. They are drones working for a queen bee, and don't have a brain of their own. I'm sure anyone would be p*ssed off if they turned up for their (expensive) bike test, only to be turned away. No refund. It happened to us before. We were training Simon Donald, editor of trashy college comic 'Viz'. He had travelled down from Newcastle (I kid you not) to do his bike test with us, on an imported Vespa T5. He was turned away at Trowbridge Test Centre because his speedo was in km's. Even though it had a mph overlay, they wouldn't accept it. No one had told us that km speedo's weren't acceptable. You can only imagine the problems and expense this caused. Of course, this is a different issue to safety. But if you're caught on the wrong end of new legislation, it can be very costly.

[redken1]

I think we are all in agreement that wearing the appropriate clothing while riding a motorcycle lowers the risk of severe injuries to the rider, but where do you draw the line? If the government introduced compulsory protective clothing for motorcyclists without much public opposition, it may decide to pass more legislation to lower the risk further. Excessive speed and ever increasing numbers of vehicles are two of the contributing factors to the carnage on our roads. Would it not therefore, be logical for the government to restrict all motorcycles to a maximum of say, 50 bhp output and/or fit them with speed restrictors?

When I was a child in the early seventies my friends and I used to relish arriving at school early during the winter months, so we could skate on the playground ice. Nowadays the local authorities shut the school gates if a couple of snowflakes land on the playground.

If a couple of boxers can smash the hell out of each other in the ring - If competitors involved in motor sports can race round a track at speeds of nearly 200mph - If rock climbers can hang from a 1000ft cliff on a length of rope - then why can’t I choose to ride my bike in my jeans If I so wish?
>

[Mark_Able]

I think we are all in agreement that wearing the appropriate clothing while riding a motorcycle lowers the risk of severe injuries to the rider, but where do you draw the line? If the government introduced compulsory protective clothing for motorcyclists without much public opposition, it may decide to pass more legislation to lower the risk further. Excessive speed and ever increasing numbers of vehicles are two of the contributing factors to the carnage on our roads. Would it not therefore, be logical for the government to restrict all motorcycles to a maximum of say, 50 bhp output and/or fit them with speed restrictors?

When I was a child in the early seventies my friends and I used to relish arriving at school early during the winter months, so we could skate on the playground ice. Nowadays the local authorities shut the school gates if a couple of snowflakes land on the playground.

If a couple of boxers can smash the hell out of each other in the ring - If competitors involved in motor sports can race round a track at speeds of nearly 200mph - If rock climbers can hang from a 1000ft cliff on a length of rope - then why can’t I choose to ride my bike in my jeans If I so wish?
>

Exactly my point Ken. Everything in life has a degree of risk, but it's MY CHOICE. I would probably never ride in inappropriate gear, but at least I still have the choice. Fed up with HSE dictating what I should and shouldn't do. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

[redken1]

Of course if you take this debate to its ultimate conclusion Mark, who needs a 150bhp motorcycle? Not me, I need 200bhp

[Uber Dave]

If a couple of boxers can smash the hell out of each other in the ring - If competitors involved in motor sports can race round a track at speeds of nearly 200mph - If rock climbers can hang from a 1000ft cliff on a length of rope - then why can’t I choose to ride my bike in my jeans If I so wish?
>

+1

[Bornagain]

Ha...Good thread.... i went out in shorts the other day just to drop the bike off at Bike aid. It's 30 seconds from my door and i went slower than i would have on a push bike (because thats as fast as the roads/traffic allowed)...the way i saw it was "if i have an 'impact' crash at that speed then it's not going to be tooooooo bad, and if i have a slide then it'll be no worse than gravel rash from when i was coming off my push bike as a kid! It was bloody a hot day, i risk assessed it and went for it, couldn't give a monkies if another biker saw me and tut tutted (yawn yawn!!) I knew what i was up to and trust my judgement

.....But, you wouldn't catch me on any kind of "ride out" without the right kit, i'm fully armoured up for the progressive stuff, but that just what i call common sense!

Ha

[BladeTriple]

This is , after all and after all the bickering about 'its my life' blah drone bore etc... (bring on the same comments when you've got a permanent scar on your body and it stings like a bitch for weeks after) This ... is about the DSA and the TEST CENTRE ... its their train set and they can dictate what rules they like. At the end of the day no examiner , or instructor for that matter, really wants someone in front of them having any kind of incident or spill, they want even less to have to wait for an ambulance to come along and patch up the body parts that are missing skin.

Have a low speed off in the right kit on test you can more or less guarantee picking the bike up , thinking 'ah crap , that will be a fail then' and wobbling back to the test centre. Without the right kit its more likely to be a real drawn out patchwork to the skin and a blue light taxi affair.

If any of you out there wants to cut around in flip flops and shorts with only the mandatory legal requirement of a helmet on then please be my guest, it is after all your life! Me? No thanks even with my Draggin Jeans , jacket and full protective equipment , I still managed to come away with a permenant 3 inch scar on my right hip where the jacket and jeans came apart, damage to my left wrist and its looking like skeletal damage to my neck as well... all which would've been much much worse had I not been wearing the correct PPE .

In my honest opinion, get them on test wearing the right gear and like Mark says, all we can do is educate the riders of tomorrow.

As usual an innocent post about what COULD happen on TEST gets blown out of all proportion and made to sound like its going to effect our civil rights on the roads too : I bet half of you believe the gospel according to MCN too ;D