Protective clothing

[bikesnbones]

A fatal accident costs the tax payer around £1,877,583 (from 2011 stats I could find in the office)
A serious accident costs around £216,203, so to me, every time some unfortunate comes off their bike and the helmet saves them, it also saved you £1,661,380...and a life.

But do those stats tell you the proportion of those fatalities that were as a result of head injurues.

[Blackal]

Why would anyone who wears protective gear - give a flying F*** if it is mandatory or not

It doesn't affect you...............

[bikesnbones]

Why would anyone who wears protective gear - give a flying F*** if it is mandatory or not

It doesn't affect you...............

Please could you stop sniping and derailing threads.
This was a perfectly good discussion till you came a long.
You really are a nasty piece of work.

[Blackal]

Why would anyone who wears protective gear - give a flying F*** if it is mandatory or not

It doesn't affect you...............

Please could you stop sniping and derailing threads.
This was a perfectly good discussion till you came a long.
You really are a nasty piece of work.

It's not sniping - I wear protective gear, so it makes no difference if it is mandatory or not - to me.

But - I do note your "passive-aggressive" stance...........

[bikesnbones]

But - I do note your "passive-aggressive" stance...........

OK could you show me the posts on this thread which fall into this category and cause you so much offence.
Thanks

[Bikerhoss]

No, that's purely a comparison between a serious accident cost and a fatal accident cost and has nothing to do with what caused the death (or what the mode of transport was for that matter), I just put it up for sake of comparison between the two.

I don't think you can argue helmets haven't saved lives, but then that's not the debate here is it really, just whether it should be compulsory or not. I have ridden without a lid (youthful demo runs and funeral processions with a large amount of compatriots likewise shod) but I still felt vulnerable.

Just for the sake of debate, let's say wearing a helmet is like an MOT, a minimal standard of safety we all have to comply with I know that's not a great analogy

I understand the contradictory nature of saying helmet yes, clothing 'up to you'

[bikesnbones]

I don't think you can argue helmets haven't saved lives,

Certainly not.
I'd never suggest that.
I'm as convinced as I can be that my helmet saved mine on one occassion, but my point is that just as we argue that protective clothing that could save lives should not be made mandatory, why are we convinced (myself included), that helmets should be,
For example a spinal injury could kill, but I'd fight hammer tooth and nail against any law making spine protecters compulsory.

[Boxermed69]

Haven't we been here before - recently

Anyhoo, seems to me that you can't have yer cake and eat it. If you agree that helmets should be compulsory then surely it's invalid to argue that other protective gear should not be? I personally wouldn't ride without protective gear, even though it's sometimes a fag and bloody uncomfortable. My choice. I also think that those who choose to ride in shorts and t-shirt are asking for it but hey ho - their choice. I'm with Fred on this. Down with the nanny state...

Interesting figures on the comparative costs of death vs serious injury. I'm guessing that takes into account that someone who carps it can no longer pay tax or otherwise contribute to the economy. Thing is, in the short term, it's relatively cheap to plant someone but costs a fortune for the NHS to keep 'em alive and nurse them back to health. Haven't got the numbers to hand but 24hrs in an intensive care unit, for example, is eye-wateringly costly - hence the hospital colloqualism 'expensive scare'.

Mike

[bikesnbones]

seems to me that you can't have yer cake and eat it. If you agree that helmets should be compulsory then surely it's invalid to argue that other protective gear should not be?

Exactly the point I'm making.
Isn't it a contradiction to argue against protectvice clothing being a matter of choice, whilst in the same breath, agreeing that helmets should be mandatory.

[Merecat]

Haven't we been here before - recently

Yes. here:
viewtopic.php?t=17979

Which covers the wide and varied range of differing opinions.

So why go there again?

for effect?

and by "for effect" I mean stirring the shit

[bikesnbones]

Not at all.
I guess if people felt that way, they'd have ignored the thread.
People who stir the s**t tend to do it by derailing the thread,
Best suggestion is if you have no interest, just ignore.
SIMPLES

[The Teutonic Tangerine]

Having passed me bike test in 1975 and then riddden up until 1989 when I took a sabatical. I took up riding again 2000, since when I had ridden just over 100,000 miles without a scratch. I too thought that I had "advanced skills" having done a lot of group riding with IAM gold standard riders - (the habits and techniques rub off and you do become a better rider) did not stop a a stupid mare in a hyundai driving into the side of me in June this year. By lucky hapenstance I was wearing proper kit not tee shirt and shorts but still suffered a crushed vertibrae and cut leg. By the way, no, I was not wearing a separate back protector - that woudl not have helped in this situation as the crush was caused by me hitting the ground with my head and being bent double (i.e the normal way you bend not bent backwards) too far. So even when we hire bikes in Tenerfife I use a proper helmet jacket and gloves and cotton work trousers which have pockets for knee armour.

But if you want to skid down the road on bare skin thats up to you - but as someone once said "if you break both yoyr legs don't come ruinning to me".

[bikesnbones]

Having passed me bike test in 1975 and then riddden up until 1989 when I took a sabatical. I took up riding again 2000, since when I had ridden just over 100,000 miles without a scratch. I too thought that I had "advanced skills" having done a lot of group riding with IAM gold standard riders - (the habits and techniques rub off and you do become a better rider) did not stop a a stupid mare in a hyundai driving into the side of me in June this year. By lucky hapenstance I was wearing proper kit not tee shirt and shorts but still suffered a crushed vertibrae and cut leg. By the way, no, I was not wearing a separate back protector - that woudl not have helped in this situation as the crush was caused by me hitting the ground with my head and being bent double (i.e the normal way you bend not bent backwards) too far. So even when we hire bikes in Tenerfife I use a proper helmet jacket and gloves and cotton work trousers which have pockets for knee armour.

But if you want to skid down the road on bare skin thats up to you - but as someone once said "if you break both yoyr legs don't come ruinning to me".

Yes fine but I didn't ask about the merits of riding protective gear.
The question was, should protective clothing be made mandatory, like helmets.

So why go there again?

for effect?

and by "for effect" I mean stirring the shit

That thread was about the dangers of not wearing protective clothing.

In this thread I am asking if protective clothing should be made mandatory.

Different question

Amazed I had to point that out

[conkerman]

Define protective clothing.

[Corvus]

...........

That thread was about the dangers of not wearing protective clothing.

In this thread I am asking if protective clothing should be made mandatory.

Different question

Amazed I had to point that out

Surely the two things are intrinsically linked? In asking if protective clothing should be made mandatory, you'd automatically have to examine the dangers of not. No?

As conkerman has said, you then have to get into definition of. And extent of.