What is it about doctors? Not content with healing the sick, they seem to want to take upon themselves the matter of legislating what is good for us. The latest little wheeze directly affects me as a motorcyclist.
Dozens of motorcyclists’ lives could be saved every year if air bag jackets were made compulsory, accident and emergency doctors have said.
Here we go again, helmet law redux. I recall the helmet law being imposed in 1973 – I was just coming up to being old enough to get a moped licence, although I didn’t start riding until I acquired an ancient BSA C15 a couple of years later. Now, I have no problem with wearing a helmet. Try riding without one in the British climate and see just how comfortable the ride is as your eyes stream and the flies hammer into your face. The argument that it protects the skull and therefore saves lives is revisited by riders to this day. It is a moot point as in the event of a high speed spill, protecting the skull is of little use if internal organs are trashed. So, do as I do and wear a helmet for comfort, but don’t kid yourself that it is a life saving requirement. It may help in certain circumstances, that is all. Much the same may be said for inflatable jackets.
The jackets are the equivalent of car air bags and inflate if the rider is thrown off during a crash.
In one version, the jacket is attached to the bike by a lead which detaches when the rider has come off suddenly.
Oh, great. And when you forget that you are attached, park the bike and attempt to walk away?
The Department of Transport said it had no plans for a new law but said it welcomed anything to improve safety.
Which means that they will watch this little flag being raised and consider another piece of useless legislation.
Although motorcyclists make up just 1% of road users, they account for 20% of fatalities.
Figures for 2007 show that 561 bikers died on the roads.
Statistics, don’t you just love ’em? No analysis is proffered here and no attempt to apply standard risk management logic. If you have to rely on personal protective equipment, your risk management system has failed. The trick here is to reduce the incidence, not the consequence. How many of these riders were killed or injured as a consequence of their own failings? How many were killed or injured as a consequence of someone else doing something stupid? Start to answer these questions first before you insist that I wear a Michelin suit.
Andy Parfitt, an A&E doctor at St Thomas’ Hospital in London, said: “There is a shocking number of deaths of motorcyclists on the roads. I think dozens of lives could be saved if these jackets were made compulsory.”
Yes, there are a shocking number of deaths. Yes, possibly this jacket will help in certain circumstances. No, it should not be compulsory; it should be up to each rider to make an informed decision.
Dr Parfitt, a keen biker, said: “There’s no question that what the jackets do afford is, they protect a motorcyclists’ vital organs, neck and spine over and above the level that a normal jacket would do.”
Fine. Provide people with the information and let them, as rational adults, make their own decisions.
A majority of deaths in motorcycle accidents are due to injuries to these vital organs that should be protected by these jackets.
Possibly so. Then let us make up our own minds. We are adults after all. Personally, I probably wouldn’t, preferring to apply my efforts to minimising consequence, rather than outcome. And, frankly, I’m likely to forget that I’m attached to the bike…
One rider whose experience underlines the kind of injuries that motorcyclists can receive in accidents is 32-year-old Dineth Wijayarathna.
He was involved in a crash two years ago on a private track that left him seriously injured.
He said: “I was doing about 130mph (210km/h), the rear wheel suspension failed on my motorcycle and I came off, broke my pelvis in two places, broke my back and broke a few ribs.”
He needed two major operations, couldn’t walk for six months and still feels the after-effects two years on.
Yes, well, we can always dig up an example that seems to make our argument for us. However, a jacket that protects the pelvis is going to be so restrictive as to affect the ability to manage the bike. Also, most of us do not ride at 130mph on tracks, do we?
Bottom line here. Doctors should heal the sick. They should not take it upon themselves to tell us how to live our lives and they should not be in the business of making law – if they want to do that, give up the doctoring and stand for parliament.
One footnote to this story. I am currently registering my R1150RT in France. I asked the local dealer to carry out a contrôle technique as we had done on the cars. It seems that this requirement does not apply to bikes. Sarkozy wanted to bring in compulsory testing, but French motorcyclists opposed the proposals and it was quietly dropped. Interesting, no?
Motorcyclists also arre known in the trade as organ donors you know. Even with polycarbonate/kevlar/carbon fibre helmets they still get killed. Of course many bikers don’t even invest in a proper protective suit, just jeans and a jacket. Come off, slide, quarter of a second down to skin, another quarter down to bone. If they are bouncing, it’s fractures. If they were doing the usual 120 mph and came off and bouncing, it’s 5 patients on the list sorted.
Ever since cars were made safer we have had fewer donors. So maybe, just maybe this here bouncy jacket might help. Won’t help the trade though. Still, with all this private ops for EU types it’s getting a bit discredited anyway.
Yes, I had heard the organ donor thing. Any rider travelling at 100mph plus speeds on public roads is an idiot who deserves all they get – quite apart from legality, there simply isn’t the road space on British roads to accommodate such speeds and allow for the actions of other road users.
I wear kit that keeps me warm and dry primarily. While Kevlar, cordura and body armour has some abrasion resistance, that is not why I buy it. Remaining warm and dry means more of my attention is on the road, therefore minimising the accident in the first place. Consequently, I have not yet gravel tested my kit and that is the way I plan to keep it.
That is my choice. It is not up to me or anyone else to impose it upon others. If some riders want to risk it in jeans and jacket, that is their concern. I do sometimes in high summer – particularly down in this part of the world. The reasoning is exactly the same as with the waterproofs; remaining comfortable means more attention on the road and therefore minimising the risk of the accident in the first place.
i dunno Longrider…
empty motorway, late at night – plenty of room and safety margin to hit the 100+
it’d be rude not to on my TL1000R
bouncy jacket.. no thanks.
wouldnt be able to move with all my other layers on.
You are assuming no roadworks or sleepy salesmen, I presume… oh, and fresh tarmac to remove those truck ridges 😉
This is a valid point – I would have the same problem.
I’m sure what we have here is a total lack of the concept of Risk Compensation allied to astonishingly lazy journalists lapping up some PR drivel.
The news reports on Breakfast were excruciating, with dim (near plant-life) ‘bikers’ (at the ‘Ace Cafe’ naturally) being shown how it works and them being fed loaded questions that would tend for these not-very-bright to give a positive response. By the evening news they had a seemingly obligatory clip from Youtube of some R1 arse wheeling as well.
I’ve no objection to these jackets whatsoever but the standard of ‘news’ reports are really appalling. What bothers me that the rest of the BBC reporters on subjects I know a little less than I do about motorcycle safety – Robert Peston, Jeremy Bowen et al – may be just as badly informed…..
Given that this seems to be the case on every subject on which I have occupational expertise, I assume ignorance and stupidity on every report I see. The BBC really is particularly dire in this respect.
But now they have their horror story to promote, I guess they are trying to manipulate public opinion to support another knee jerk law; just like the Dangerous Dogs Act. Brought in “because it is the right thing to do”, years later no cases had been brought under it, whatsoever!
Its just another part of the continuing drive to criminalise everyone. Then the police have always got a “justified” reason whenever they want to arrest you (or me, or anyone else).
This isn’t a problem, its part of the solution; the final solution
anyone with a lightweight bike or scooter wouldn’t need this suit. you may rest assured that it will be made compulsory. the mindset exists which builds off-road test centres at the tax-payers’ expense with artificial roads, because the EU want emergency stops at 50kph (31mph) – why didn’t the Brits just do the emergency stop on a 40mph stretch? and what’s one mile an hour on 30mph, it’s not even measurable without laser devices, and it’s within speedo accuracy anyway. it seems that one arm of the state wants to reduce emissions, at the same time as motorcycling is made as inconvenient and unattractive as possible.