I posted this in response to an article in Motor Bike Writer on the Victoria Police push for protective clothing to be worn by riders. It has come about by the death of 29 riders in Victoria this year.
__________________________________
But what were they wearing?
A stolen bike did not kill the rider, nor did not having a licence or the unregistered bike.
No where in any of the reports on the deaths of the riders has there been mention (to my knowledge) that the cause been a reported as a lack of protective clothing. It has been striking an an immovable object that has caused fatal injuries. That object has been cars, signs, trees, railing and other roadside furniture.
The reasons for the actual collisions are many and varied whether it is single or multi vehicle.
Back to the original question. I agree that riders should wear clothing that is protective, but that is always subjective. Is the protection required from the elements - sun, rain, cold etc,; or is it from the event of losing control of the bike and hitting the ground? Once again the quality and design of the clothing comes into question, depending on the requirements of the rider.
I could continue breaking down different components to the discussion but I think that I have made my point in regards to the personal choice of sensible clothing. Victoria Police have bundled the rider death in with the debate on protective clothing, once again VicPol is typically looking at numbers, not causation, resulting in media hype and public outcry.
Rider behaviour is the main cause of collisions or incidents, the next is car driver behaviour and then it goes down the list regarding road design, road quality, road side furniture, weather conditions and so forth. Rider behaviour covers a multitude of actions.
Before the knee-jerk reaction by VicPol takes on unstoppable snowball proportions regarding protective clothing, there needs to be an extensive investigation into rider deaths examining the cause of the collision, actual injuries suffered and clothing worn. Only then a correlation can be drawn between fatality and lack of protective clothing. I doubt that there ever will be such an in-depth study undertaken to truly reveal the reasons for rider collisions and outcome.
Protective clothing does not protect against the severe impact that causes death, it protects against other injuries.
Recently I saw a road safety poster stating "Dress for the slide, not the ride". It does make sense. But, you will never see a poster stating "Dress for the high speed impact with a tree caused by the potholes on the corner that caused loss of traction".
Ooops - I emant this as a stand alone topic but mucked up when posting it. Not realising it had been submitted I put an edited version in the Police Blitz post.
Oh well.....
But what were they wearing? A stolen bike did not kill the rider, nor did not having a licence or the unregistered bike. No where in any of the reports on the deaths of the riders has there been mention (to my knowledge) that the cause been a reported as a lack of protective clothing. It has been striking an an immovable object that has caused fatal injuries. That object has been cars, signs, trees, railing and other roadside furniture. The reasons for the actual collisions are many and varied whether it is single or multi vehicle. Back to the original question. I agree that riders should wear clothing that is protective, but that is always subjective. Is the protection required from the elements - sun, rain, cold etc,; or is it from the event of losing control of the bike and hitting the ground? Once again the quality and design of the clothing comes into question, depending on the requirements of the rider. I could continue breaking down different components to the discussion but i think that I have made my point in regards to the personal choice of sensible clothing. Victoria Police have bundled the rider death in with the debate on protective clothing, once again VicPol is typically looking at numbers, not causation, resulting in media hype and public outcry. Rider behaviour is the main cause of collisions or incidents, the next is car driver behaviour and then it goes down the list regarding road design, road quality, road side furniture, weather conditions and so forth. Rider behaviour covers a multitude of actions. Before the knee-jerk reaction by VicPol takes on unstoppable snowball proportions regarding clothing, there needs to be an extensive investigation into rider deaths examining the cause of the collision, actual injuries suffered and clothing worn. Only then a correlation can be drawn between fatality and protective clothing. I doubt that there ever will be such an in-depth study undertaken to truly reveal the reasons for rider collisions and outcome. Protective clothing does not protect against the severe impact that causes death, it protects against other injuries. Recently I saw a road safety poster stating "Dress for the slide, not the ride". It does make sense. You will never see a poster stating "Dress for the high speed impact with a tree caused by the potholes on the corner that caused loss of traction".
