Correct clothes does the trick *edited*

http://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/avnBpnE_700b_v1.jpg

I came across this image as bored as I was through 9gag I would say this is for people who wanted cheap not fit for riding stuff or only want to ride in their own normal clothes. I still see people riding around in tracksuits and such.

Image says it all. I have fallen off doing an accidental wheelie while learning. Borrowed jacket and such didn't have proper riding trousers. Knees were painful for weeks and 1 was scraped but went straight after accident back to work while the riding jacket saved my top half. nope nope.

Buy the [strikeout]quality[/strikeout] correct riding clothes it will last longer!

Uh oh, started the old debate again...

Uh oh, started the old debate again...

I agree.

How do you define quality? I can give you numerous examples where the expensive branded kit has caused major problems and where cheaper kit has prevented problems.

On top of which I can testify to the expensive is not always quality argument. I was wearing a £300 pair of boots when I had my crash. I am now a cripple and disabled because of them. I might have come off better injury wise had I been wearing my oen boots which cost a fraction of the price.

It is all subjective.

Sorry, but I dont think its right to say "its all subjective"

Its more like,, its a roll of the dice in a crash.

You can crash in top of the line kit.. with a top rated ARAI helmet and if your head happens to impact something.. a road sign perhaps, then the helmet might save your head from a fracture.. but you're dead (or tetraplegic) anyway because your neck was broken.

Similarly.. in a slide, The photo shows someone wearing ordinary track suit bottoms and tops that were heavily damaged and no gloves. it doesnt take much of a slide to do that.

The OP talks about 'quality' kit.. and it seems to me its that statement.. the word 'quality' in the meme she repeats thats been picked upon and torn apart. I would replace that word with 'correct' - 'Correct' bike gear.. bought from a bike gear shop.. that has some design features that will go some way towards mitigating damage to skin and bone. It might not prevent all damage.. because its down to the roll of a dice how the crash plays out.. but it might help. it just might.

I'll take that chance that wearing 'correct' bike gear will be of some help in a crash... like we all do. The alternative is what?

I was chatting to a lad who works at a local bike tyre place and he was telling the story of when he first started riding.....he used to wear trackies and trainers......anyway he binned the bike pulling a wheelie one day and slid up the road on his *rse. He said that the embarrassment of having his mum picking little melted nylon pellets out of his *rse with tweezers was enough to convince him to get some proper bike gear....

A lot of this bike gear simply wasn't available when I first started riding.....a leather jacket and gloves, jeans and cowboy boots were my normal gear....with a waxed cotton Belstaff jacket and trousers when the weather was a bit sh*tty.......no Kevlar, no armouring.....

My thoughts on modern bike gear is that if it's available, then why not use it? Again, hopefully I'll never have to test out how good my gear is.....but if I do slide up the road I'd rather do it wrapped in leather or Kevlar....

(Must be a nutter to weigh on this one )

I'm with shorty. The message the poster's trying to say is that it's better to wear proper bike gear than to wear normal clothes.

Is this true? I see it this way: imagine that you were to put 1000 or so people who'd just crashed while wearing bike kit on your left, and 1000 or so who just crashed wearing a sweatshirt and jogging bottoms on right. I reckon that most (although not all!) people would say that, while the group on the left wouldn't be a pretty sight, the group on the right would look even worse off.

Another thing is likely to be true: that there'll be some people in the sweatshirt group on the right who'll be in a better state than some of those who were wearing head to toe kit on the left. Just as there'll be some people who crash in biker boots who end up worse off than if they'd worn shoes (perhaps because they were unlucky and picked a boot that was badly designed, or perhaps they were just unlucky in the crash - I don't know what happened to you, TC ). But in my view, this doesn't mean the basic common sense message of the poster is "all subjective". I'd say it just means that when it comes to what happens to you in a crash, that luck plays a part, and what you're wearing plays a part too.

You have missed the point of what I was saying.

Even cheap kit is going to be better than jeans and T shirt or shorts and T shirt I am not disputing that. The comment that was made was about quality gear and this is what is subjective.

It is unfortunate that the majority of the stuff I did for the BBC on Fake Britain got edited out (because it did not fit in with what they wanted to put out) but the point I made then was that even a rally cheap leather is going to be better than some of the clothing you see some riders wear, and having had an involvement in the PPE testing and standards for the CE mark, there are a lot of brand names which are no better than some cheaper non branded items because of the way that the system can be cheated.

That is why I said the term quality is subjective. amd I ave 25 years of case studies in respect of kit , which started when I was still a serving plod motorcyclist to fall back on to give good examples as well as my invovement as a consultant to the manufacturers, helmet companies and BSI.

I think we're all missing the really important point here:

That picture is SHOCKINGLY shit

CE rated armour is CE rated armour. It can be in a £100 jacket or a £500 jacket. The important part is fit. To protect your elbow the armour has to stay at your elbow when you go down. I know one of my jackets is a bit too big for me and I am more likely to come a cropper in it that my other jacket, which is a bit too tight, but everything stays in place.

One difference is that a £100 jacket may need replacing after an off, but the £500 may not or can be repaired.

CE rated armour is CE rated armour. It can be in a £100 jacket or a £500 jacket. The important part is fit. To protect your elbow the armour has to stay at your elbow when you go down.

You are right, but this is where part of the problem lies.

A manufacturer will submit an item for testing. The manufactuere determines and decides what is going to be tested for CE approval, so it may be armour, it may be abrasion resistance, it may be stitching, it may be thickness of leather, either singularly or collectively. If it passes then it can carry the CE mark.

Bu what some do is (lets use a textile jacket as an example) is that the manufacturers will submit their garment to be tested for waterproofing, it passes and then carries the CE mark. It will carry the CE mark because it passed the specific test and so can be sold as such even though its protective qualities have not been tested. To the lay person it appears that the garment has been tested and is approved across the board and will/can assume that armour is included but is often not the case.

So a person buys the garment think it has universal CE approval and it is not until they fall off and hurt themselves that the truth is found out.

So the point I am making, s that whilst I agree with your comment, CE accreditaion is no guarantee.

However, I am aware that there is a proposal from the French (and it is a very good and sound proposal) to change the accrediation process and the cheats will have great difficulty in sneaking in some of these cut corner garments or be able to fool the lay person/end consumer.

It will howver take a couple of years as the working party to move the new ideas forward has only just been set up, and the UK representative is someone who I know and will make sure that the system is viable and to the benefit of all riders.

Uh oh, started the old debate again...

 

I agree.

How do you define quality? I can give you numerous examples where the expensive branded kit has caused major problems and where cheaper kit has prevented problems.

On top of which I can testify to the expensive is not always quality argument. I was wearing a £300 pair of boots when I had my crash. I am now a cripple and disabled because of them. I might have come off better injury wise had I been wearing my oen boots which cost a fraction of the price.

It is all subjective.

Quality might not be the correct word I should've used.

I am sorry to hear about your accident. Having the correct gear can provide a certain degree of protection on how the rider has fallen. no crash is the same. an expensive or cheap kit can't protect your ankle from being twisted when there is a large amount of force put into it.

I thought placing this image can give some idea to people to buy kits and not ride in their normal clothes such as tracksuits, skinny jeans.

Quality might not be the correct word I should've used.

I am sorry to hear about your accident. Having the correct gear can provide a certain degree of protection on how the rider has fallen. no crash is the same. an expensive or cheap kit can't protect your ankle from being twisted when there is a large amount of force put into it.

I thought placing this image can give some idea to people to buy kits and not ride in their normal clothes such as tracksuits, skinny jeans.

Wearing cheap gear is better than no gear or the wrong gear, but even the most expensive kit will not prevent some injuries

There is one particular type of helmet for example which costs a lot of money, but the chances of suffering a diffuse injury to the base of the skull (broken neck) increases by 75%. But because it costs a lot of money, many people believe it has to be good.

That is why it is all subjective

I agree some CE armour seems pretty flimsy. I do tend to upgrade and use known makes such as Forcefield.