Due to the imminent arrival of my new road bike, I have been forced to consider my bike riding gear. For years now I’ve ridden almost exclusively on track so wore only one-piece race leathers. However in days of yore I rode sports bikes, enduro bikes, supermotos and commuter bikes so have a bit of a collection of ageing gear.
My new bike is a middleweight adventure bike. I hate the term ‘adventure bike’, it makes me sound like a wannabe Charlie Boorman ….
…oh. Oh dear. That’s exactly what I am. In fact I’ve followed the absolute archetypal bike rider career progression – early hacks like 1200 Bandits with flat bars, then onto sportsbikes I wasn’t good enough to ride, dabbling at riding dirt bikes – very badly, then thinking I’m a hero wobbling round on trackdays, then racing a bike too powerful for me before finding that less is more and realising racing a pizza bike is the most fun you can have on two wheels. And now I’ve reached that stage where you buy a bike capable of completing the Dakar and envisage yourself riding round the world on it when actually it’ll go through some muddy puddles and potholes three miles outside Reading every third Sunday. But this is the path we must follow. My only claim to non-conformity is I didn’t buy a GS…
Being a self-righteous sort of guy and a stickler for rules, in my early riding days I was one of those people who tutted at the very thought of riding a motorbike without donning every available item of personal protection. I would complain at the sight of blokes wearing trainers on superbikes or not wearing gloves or riding in T-shirts blown half way up their backs. You see I had ‘educated myself’ on the damage that even a small accident can have and therefore I was wearing the ‘right’ bike gear whilst these oiks clearly didn’t understand what would happen if they crashed (and many of them rode in a manner which would greatly increase the odds of an off). So these riders must be ignorant of the risks they were taking, I assumed. This, I now recognise, was me being my pretentious little self.
Risk assessment is personal. And that is intentional. And that is also highly desirable. Because the alternative is the suppression of free thinking and the imposition of draconian rules on aspects of our lives which we currently have personal control over.
This was highlighted recently when JD Sports advertised Nike trainers by showing them being worn by someone wheelying a motorbike down a street. The motorcycle industry threw their hands up in horror and condemned the advert as ‘irresponsible’ for encouraging people to wear non-PPE gear when riding a bike. But the reality is that this is exactly what we see on our streets every day. Whether it be a fifteen year old R1 or a little gangster’s Surron on its back wheel, I’ll see riders in trainers every day. That’s the choice a lot of people make – the ad was simply a reflection of our daily reality.
So what is it that the motorcycle industry wants?
Are they suggesting that it should be illegal to wear trainers on a powered bike? No, because that would decimate the number of legitimate motorcycle riders overnight. Bikes are expensive. Helmets, gloves, expensive. If you then need CE-approved PPE boots, trousers and jacket on top? Well that rules out bikes as anything other than rich people’s toys and will destroy bike sales figures – and in turn will destroy the businesses of those who sell accessories and apparel. (And you can forget your Deliveroo and Just Eat economy if the riders on scooters have to buy £2k worth of protective gear before delivering your soggy kebab.) It is an unavoidable fact that to sell bike gear you must have people on bikes.
If the bike industry wants to avoid mandatory protective equipment (other than helmets), what does it want? It seems it wants exclusivity on influence over bike riders. It wants to be able to decide what images bike riders see so that this can maximise sales of ‘protective’ bike gear. You see, there’s an important point to note – since 2018, all clothing sold as motorcycle clothing must be examined and rated for CE approval. This instantly creates a tangible difference between what you buy in Top Shop (does that still exist?) and what you buy in SportsBikeShop. And that’s just perfect for motorcycle apparel suppliers who can now say that you need to buy your gear from them. If it’s not CE marked then it isn’t biking gear. And they want to make sure we all believe that wearing anything other than biking gear is irresponsible. Hence the objection to the mere inference by JD Sports that wearing trainers on a bike is anything other than lunacy.
But here’s the rub – simply buying something approved for motorcycle use is no guarantee of the level of safety it provides to you – it really only ensures it is made of materials that offer some protection. Pop in to your local SportsBikeShop and just look at the range of CE clothing they have, from shirts to hoodies to jeans. The choice is vast and nobody but nobody can convince me that some of that gear isn’t next to useless for protecting flesh and bone. Which is why you need a grading system which determines how much impact and abrasion protection any garment theoretically provides.
Testing of equipment intended for motorcycle use was originally based on the Cambridge standard, formally introduced in EN 13595:2002 – it was mandatory but never enforced. This standard was ignored by the vast majority of manufacturers (the same ones preaching we must wear approved safety gear).
Then the EU introduced EN 17092:2020 which came into effect in 2018, this standard was mandatory and enforced. The standard reduced the impact zones tested from four to three and, critically, changed from the Cambridge standard of abrasion testing to what is considered a less rigorous test, known as Darmstadt. They also removed any test for cut impact. EN 17092:2020 has five levels, C, B, A, AA and AAA. Class C is impact protection only (abrasion protection is expected to be provided by a second garment) whilst class B does not provide any impact protection. So A to AAA is where you need to be at for road riding.
Given that AAA is a less rigorous test than what went before, it isn’t the pinnacle of what can be achieved with the right gear. Those garments which exceeded the AAA requirements are now categorised with all other AAA garments with no way of differentiating. Given that the tests offer no absolute numbers which a rider can use (eg how long will it take to wear through on surface type x when worn by rider type y) then all grades are only ever relative to other grades – ie AAA will hold together longer than AA in the same situation. This suggests that there are only three categories of clothing (approved, better than approved and better again) which to me seems far too indiscriminate.
The request for additional higher standards to which the very best gear could align has been repeatedly denied. The UK, outside of EU, is free to add its own 4A (AAAA), 5A, 6A categories should it choose, but for some reason the representatives of some of the largest brands claiming to have your safety as their priority have blocked it. So they want you to be safe, just not too safe. According to them AAA is good enough for anyone and there’s no point in exceeding the standard as you’ll still only ever be able to claim AAA. This is deliberate, because categorising items above AAA would highlight the weaknesses in modern, lighter fabrics which are good enough to achieve AAA but would never pass the Cambridge test the way leather or heavier/multi-layered textiles can. In other words it gives manufacturers much more scope for variety whilst still claiming the ‘highest’ level of protection.
All of this needs to be taken in context. How much protection do you want? Are you prepared to sacrifice comfort for ultimate protection? Could sacrificing comfort add to the risk of a crash? Probably most importantly – does your gear fit well? The best lid on the market is next to useless if it is the wrong size and high impact resistance in your body armour is no good if your baggy hoodie allows the armour to twist out of the way of the impact zone. And at the end of the day if someone drives over you, no armour is going to help.
And rarely is anything related to crash protection as obvious as it appears. Helmets, for example, certainly reduce the number of deaths. But do they create more brain injury patients instead? Some studies show that open face helmets provide minimal protection against facial trauma and brain injury compared to no helmet, so why are they legal?
If the bike industry wants to convince us to buy their gear, they need to invest in educating people and being transparent. Educate them on risk and how to mitigate it. Be clear about what protective gear can and cannot achieve. And don’t condemn others who offer an alternative view – if it’s a stupid view it should be easy to overcome with intelligent marketing. I’m not their target market – I’m already convinced of the importance of the right gear and I also trust my own judgement based on years of experience. I’ll go to the shops on my step-through wearing nothing more protective than full face lid and mx gloves. I know it’ll hurt if I come off, but I understand that risk. Yes, my neighbour will tell me to ‘protect the NHS’ by wearing protective gear – but he drinks like a fish, is five stone overweight and hasn’t exercised in his life so forgive me if I give him short shrift.
In other words, do your homework. JD Sports don’t care for your wellbeing, but then neither does much of the bike industry – they care about selling stuff. One resource I have been impressed with is the Bennetts Bike Social site. They undertake independent testing and have introduced higher standards to differentiate the most protective equipment on the market. They also provide some great insight from experts such as THIS PAPER. Here’s a GREAT ARTICLE echoing my thoughts above. Here’s an INDEPENDENT REVIEW of the regulations highlighting that EN 13595 was intended to co-exist with the new EN 17092 until 17092 was amended to allow for higher classifications than AAA. See HERE for Bennett’s list of equipment tested and proven to exceed AAA rating.
The following is a quote from Brian Samson (BKS) provided to Bennetts Bike Social:
“In the beginning, there was an assurance that EN 13595 would be left in place until EN 17092 was first revised and with that there was hope of both standards being merged to create AAAA (4A), AAAAA (5A) and maybe even a 6A level. It would appear that interest has never got going from the powers that be, but resistance to higher specifications than are currently provided by EN 17092 AAA do not serve riders’ interests – they only serve those whose commercial interests who are satisfied by the current version of EN 17092. Surely as any manufacturer of PPE, you would encourage the highest levels of safety for the end users you all serve?”
As a very happy existing customer of BKS, they were where I ended up when I couldn’t make sense of the classifications of textile clothes. They achieve Bennett’s Diamond Plus with their TEXTILE SUIT that is provided to police riders across the country, so that’s what I’ve gone with. In fact they have discovered they can achieve better abrasion test results with textile suits than leather – which is why the police forces across the country are now moving to the more comfortable textiles.
I do think the bike industry is missing a trick here. Adding AAAA and AAAAA rating won’t undermine sales of AAA in my opinion – it’s about context and risk. If you are transparent about what each means, each rider can decide for themselves. Got plenty of money and dislike skin grafts? Just buy as many ‘A’s as you can afford. On a budget or not bothered about having the last word in protection and prefer a lighter fabric? Stick with an AAA. It’s about enabling bikers to make educated choices rather than trying to force-feed us mediocre kit and hobbling the top end guys by removing their ability to differentiate.