Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Protective Clothing

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by mrblack, Jan 24, 2005.

  1. I am doing some research into bike pants (I normally wear jeans and know they are next to useless when sliding along the bitumen) and found the attached link which might be of interest.


    It has heaps of info on all protective clothing (including helmets) and discusses abrasion (shudder) performance of different materials.
  2. Definately an interesting read though it does raise the question of why we don't have Australian Standards on motorcycle gear other than helmets and visors. This is not to say that protective jackets and pants necessarily be made compulsory but at least you'd have some reassurance that you're not forking out large sums of money for gear that's simply going to tear open when you hit the ground.
  3. very impressive
    the sorta stuff that MRAA in Vic should be showing
    for us Victorians..the best we have is - www.spokes.com.au

  4. Australian Standards for protective gear might lead to compulsory wearing of approved gear.

    If the australian standard was different from (say) the european one, how many manufacturers would bother getting their stuff tested?
  5. Mate the guys in NSW are so far ahead of us it's a disgrace.
    Just goes to show you what can be done when all are working for a common goal. :roll:
  6. The MRAA will never come close to the MCC of NSW. It's constitution and membership base just wouldn't allow it to become so.
    Look out for Motorcycling Australia's (MA) opening of a road division that has just recently began. It has all the political swayed groups running scared that they'll become insignificant against the money and influence of MA. I believe, if done right, MA will become the RACV of the motorcycling world and look forward to that hopefully happening.

    Refer: http://www.ma.org.au/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Current4&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=3399
  7. The only problem that I have with an entity such as MA taking up riders' representations is that it's a commercial organisation, for which its first priority is earnings.

    If the level of apathy that is existant amongst riders now is what affects MRA/VMU/Whoever membership numbers, how then will MA be able to attract riders to its cause?

    Also, how would it structure its "recreational" division to take into account the rights and needs of every day motorcyclists?

    As for comparing it to the RACV, NRMA etc., those organisations are also commercial entities. What vested interests do they have when lobbying governments?

    From my own experience, the RACV has really done little to better my lot as a motorist. I've constantly asked it to look into street and other road signage in and around Melbourne, particularly when the signs are hidden behind trees, obscured by traffic lights, and often shop frontage. It makes it hard for out-of-towners to navigate around the place.

    The RACV has never bothered to acknowledge my concerns, either via email, letter, or any other means.

    Also, being a country road user, the issue of petrol price disparity between metro and rural users has never been more relevant. Yet the RACV has been unable to achieve anything on this front. It also lobbys to have the government direct motoring fine revenue into road safety issues, but it's constantly ignored.

    So, really, I can't see MA being any more beneficial to us than the present lobby groups.
  8. Any org that forces you to pay $ 250.00, to lic. a child to race a mini bike, per year, isn't popular.
    I don't think I have ever heard a good word about MA, they are nothing more than stand over merchants in my opinion.
  9. With the same being said for MRA, MCCofNSW, etc. Most political rep groups charge membership fee's and rely on income. They are answerable to only their small membership numbers. Whether they are a legally recognised commercial company or non-profit company makes little, if any, difference in this regard. They all need, charge, and rely on money. So what's the difference with MA? They'll have the contacts, influence, clout, experience, and experts to get it via grants from the government rather than relying heavily/solely on members and donations.

    As per the above, they have the money, experience, and experts to do good things for riders.

    No more vested interest than current groups like MRA, MCCofNSW, and AMC. These each have an interest in motorcycling and are accountable to their constituents. Just like RACV, NRMA etc. are accountable to share holders.

    We do that on purpose. Don't you get the hint yet that what don't want you in the big smoke, and do everyhting possible to detract you. :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

    See above :LOL:
  10. Except that the commercial operations aim to earn a profit. That is, money over and above what is needed to service debt, provide services, etc. And that money goes to shareholders. It doesn't necessarily go towards those who contribute to those profits by paying for the services.

    In this case, if bike riders did join the MA rather than the MRA or whoever, how would they feel if say, only 50% of their membership fees went into lobbying for a better deal, and the rest went to prop up the executive arm of the org, or perhaps the competition side of things?

    It's like donating to charity. The Red Cross, for example, copped a caning when it was revealed that less than 70% of donations to the Bali Appeal actually went there. Or when Care Australia was revealed to have its own swank corporate headquarters and its own business jets.

    At least the likes of the various MRAs, MCCs etc. use what resources they have in the course of lobbying, etc.. I won't go into the allegations over the years of misappropriation of funds, etc. that's been bandied about in some orgs. That's a separate issue to whether their official raison d'etre is as a non-profit org and set up for the members' benefits.

    Do they? What exactly has MA done in this area? I'm aware that it's probably done some good for motorcycle racing, although, when reading some of the news items in AMCN in the past, this can be questioned (check out the likes of Ten Tenths forum for what a lot of people think of CAMS and Avesco in the car racing scene - is MA any different?)

    Perhaps I should have said "conflict of interest". I would be reluctant to trust my motorcycling future to an org who exists to make a profit. And those shareholders you mention may not even have a say as to how the orgs in which they have shares may approach the governments of the day. For example, the RACV advocates the widespread use of speed cameras, provided that they aren't seen or perceived to be revenue raisers. Me, I object to their indiscriminate use, and that of the government's policy on low speed limits on freeways, and low tolerances, and the continued use of junk science to justify their continued use. So, I have a choice - be an RACV "member", or not be one. Whichever I choose, I will be attacked if I criticse the org.

    Back to MA. What if it can get grants, etc, provided that it doesn't make too much noise over WRBs, or front plates, or footpath parking, or massive increases in TAC fees?

    Damien Codognotto pushed this point when he objected to the MRA being beholden to TAC for its Toy Run funding, citing claims that the MRA would be gagged as to what it could say about the way TAC treats bikeriders, etc. Whether he was right, I don't know. Certainly, the issue was debated in the forums.

    By widening its scope of operation to include representing "recreational" riders, it will increase its revenue base. If the funds it receives is channeled back into lobbying for a better deal, rather than propping up the sport side of things, then that'd be good. But will it happen?
  11. duuuuuuuuuuuck! i think i see a political debate :shock:

    be afraid, be VERY afraid
  12. This may seem off topic but...

    I recently tested my Draggin jeans in operational conditions.

    They held up very well with only a minor tear on the primary contact point. As an added bonus the blood (from a transmitted abrasion) washed out easily as well.

    :D :D :D
  13. I might have a go at these jeans on this site

    at $150 they are a damn sight cheaper than draggins and from what I have heard the cordura inserts don't melt and burn you like the kevlar inserts do in the draggins.
    plus you get a netrider discount as well.
  14. Suggest you be informed and know what the MA is about, how it operates, etc. before you make any further bad assumptions about them. http://www.ma.org.au/Content/MA/AboutUsLinks/AboutMotorcyclingAustralia/WhoisMA/Who_is_MA_.htm I would have thought that fact that they also have a .org.au domain and the requirements to have one of those would have been enough for you to also realise they aren't a corporation or business who strive to make profits.

    Don't mention that name around here and expect it lends any credibility. The guy is a washed-out has been that no longer does anything of any good for motorcycling.
  15. .

    I've tested my Draggin' s twice in the last couple of years. I had no issues with melting. I understand that Kevlar is heat resistant to around 1500C and I've used the knitted Kevlar gloves from Draggin Jeans to work on a still hot exhaust pipe. In the interests of science I've got one glove (the other disappeared a while back). I'll put some heat to it tonight and see what happens.

    However if Kevlar melted then the guy getting dragged on his backside in the Draggin Jeans video might have a vary different ending :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

    The Cordura in the Tiger Angel jacket did not stand up to sliding quite as well as the Kevlar in the Jeans...

    Cost of repairs on the Jacket - $30 for the pocket and sleeve.
    Cost of repairs on the Jeans - $10 for a new knee piece - the Kevlar was OK but the denim wasn't.
    Cost of not losing skin - priceless :D
  16. they look a damn site better than the draggins! not so much for the material, but for where it is. the cordura covers more than just the ass and knees unlike draggins. i'd be guessing that they're a little cooler too, draggins are quite a bit warmer than standard jeans which i'd put down to the kevlar being so thick and heavy.

    i still dont have much more faith in draggins than a standard pair of jeans (well at least the cargos anyways) but these do look a bit better. still, i reckon it would be best to just not stack eh :LOL: