But with ears like yours, surely the front of the face doesn’t then get distracted when passport checking
He won’t answer your question direct. But tbf its a bit like saying ‘if you crashed when you were doing 80 mph on that A round would you now regret it’ and using an obvious response as reason to apply and restrict freedom or liberties
I know where you're coming from, I understand your points, but there's no value to letting idiots risk harming themselves. On track, you wear things to mitigate the risk and don't bat an eyelid about it. Why should the same not be the case for the road? And there is nothing to say that the slippery slope will happen. Were mandatory seatbelts and helmets a bad thing? Did they lead to real lack of personal freedom? These things have done way more good than harm. £1 million was a very near rounding from the last set of Glos Police figures I saw. And I'm prepared to be wrong, but I think armour already has to be CE 1 when it is fitted to PPE.
It’s more the benchmark that would be used. Are jeans ok? Kevlar jeans? Standard of textiles? Armour doesn’t stop burns, possibly minimising breakages, but can’t see how a CE bit of foam will help with hitting a keen at 60 Biking is declining already. Stop the city types riding to work in their suits and over skits and it’s dead.
Not really the same though, is it? One is making a stupid choice and the other is only being a little away from the prescribed law. In the Highway Code it says: Strong boots, gloves and suitable clothing may help to protect you if you are involved in a collision. The inference is that not having these can't. Society needs to protect vulnerable people who can't make good decisions for themselves.
Society won’t distinguish the difference. 80 on an A road may as well be 140 on the Mway to most people. For some of us, it’s easy all day touring pace. And the irony is, the more trying, the more learning means the faster you can go within a decent safety margin
It will if the law makers put the decisions in the hands of competent people. Agree, but it's not the same as PPE when the worst happens.
people who show flesh when riding should be rehabilitated into reality, by spending 1 week in A&E observing the state of such victims being put back together. Does a law really need to be passed for peoples own stupid decisions to be taken away?
Are there any stats on this? Anything that can quantify how many crashes, while wearing shorts and t shirts, resulted in injury that ended up with someone being taken to A&E and needing treatment?
Yes, that could be home treated. 5mph topple off. Not every crash is 80 MPH (And still not convinced the original crash was a real event) And what are the stats of motorbike gravel rash events vs cycle gravel rash events? If there are more on a pushbike, shouldn’t we address that and make it it’s legal to ride a cycle in anything less than a designated PPE standard?
