Talk:Motorcycle personal protective equipment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I am thinking of moving this page to "motorcycle safety gear" and including some information from the helmet article. Clawed 22:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Picture of Individual in Safety Clothing[edit]

Pictured individual is wearing sneakers, not motorcycle boots or even proper ankle-height boots. Were he in a collision his ankle could be broken or possibly worse, I don't think this really properly illustrates the idea of the article.

I agree. Also, I think a picture of someone wearing leathers rather than textiles would illustrate the point more clearly - to most non-motorcyclists textile gear doesn't look all that different from normal clothing. --^pirate 16:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging?[edit]

There's some overlap between what's here and what's in Motorcycle_safety#Personal_Protective_Equipment. Perhaps it would be best if that section pointed to this article. I agree with clawed that this article should be moved under a new title. Brianhe 06:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buying guide section[edit]

The section Motorcycle jacket guide looks like an advertisement. I'm inclined to remove this whole section. Is it even original writing? No clue as to identity of the submitter, just an IP address. I suggest that it be recreated in the appropriate place for original works, perhaps on Wikisource or the author's own web site, then linked to this article, if appropriate. Brianhe 15:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding template-tone tag and giving this a little longer. Brianhe 04:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted it, saved a sentence or two under "Leathers". -- Brianhe 01:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wild One[edit]

Marlon Brando actually wears a Schott Cafe Racer jacket in The Wild One 211.27.39.36 16:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle Airbag Jacket[edit]

A Motorcycle Airbag Jacket is probably significant enough to be included in this article. I can not find any article for the item itself, either. This is a pretty big development in the world of motorcycle safety, yet it has no mention here whatsoever. --Ihmhi 05:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two makers, Hit-Air and MotoAir. Lengthy review of the latter can be found on Webbikeworld[23]. See also Motorcycle Safety#Airbag Devices. --Brianhe 05:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another maker of motorcycle airbag jackets is IPJ Impact Jackets(www.impactjackets.com) they have created a new 2nd Generation Airbag Jacket that inflates in 30 Milliseconds or twice as fast as some car airbag systems or 16 times faster than the Hit-Air or Moto Air jackets. The new 2nd Generation Impact Jacket entire airbag system is made in the USA and has 80% of the components of the jacket is US DOT approved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.56.99 (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a corporate relationship between motoair and impact jackets. While this relationship is not stated on either site, both sites use identical images on their product testing pages(impact jackets testing picturesand motoair jackets testing pictures). Furthermore, the jacket used for testing appears to be a motoair M-200 jacket, which has a very different appearance from anything in impact jackets product line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.119.88 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

by the numbers section[edit]

The section that specifies the tear and abrasion strengths of the different materials needs a citation. I think it comes directly from a motorcycle gear manufacturer's web page (motoport / cycleport). If that is the case, it would probably be wise to find some independent verification. At the very least, information from a source with a vested interest should be viewed sceptically.

63.199.71.135 (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Tear and Abrasion Strength by the Numbers" table contains both incorrect and misleading information.

The "Pounds of Force Until Tear" column appears to contain the materials' tear strength, which (despite the similar terminology) is actually a completely different thing. If you cut a woven material between two of its threads, then pull the material apart along that existing cut (where the threads of the weave will amplify and concentrate the force), the material's tear strength is the amount of force required to continue parting the material in line with the cut.

500 denier Cordura, for example, has a tear strength of about 25 pounds. However, if you are not enlarging an existing cut between threads (which is obviously the majority case in protective clothing, and what the table's column heading implies), it takes well over 200 pounds of force to cause it to tear.

Also, the "Abrasion Cycles Until Failure" column appears to show materials' relative abrasion resistance, but it is completely meaningless unless (at the very least) all materials were tested on the same machine under identical circumstances (which is almost certainly not the case for these numbers).

For the numbers to really be useful, you would need to know things like how fast the abrading material is moving, how large the abraded area is, how much pressure is put on the abraded surface, etc. Different materials will often abrade through at very different rates when these variables are changed. Woven Kevlar, for example, while a very tough material under most circumstances, actually holds up quite poorly against the type of abrasion common in motorcycle accidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.68.1.129 (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Bias[edit]

The chart listing potential failure points and tear resistance is copied almost verbatim from a manufacturer of kevlar motorcycle protective wear. Perhaps unsuprisingly, kevlar then gets a very high rating.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.11.171.7 (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intent to move around categories a little bit.[edit]

See also discussion: Talk:Belstaff#Real_motorcycle_jackets.

Since this is the main article for the category, I wanted to alert that I'm going to create a new category Category:Motorcycle gear under Category:Motorcycle technology and put Category:Motorcycle safety gear under it. The new category would include pretty much everything you might wear on a motorcycle, or that riders wore in the past. Would cover not just crash protection, but fashion, style, advertising logos on clothing, and the oft-neglected topic of weather protection. Lots of gear is worn to keep you warm, cool, or dry, not to prevent crash injuries.

Also thinking of renaming this page to Motorcycle safety gear to align it with the category it represents. In common speech, helmets, goggles and such are not usually called "clothing" but rather "gear" or "equipment". --Dbratland (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So long as the Category:Motorcycle safety gear continues to represent gear which has been designed with the intent of being motorcycle safety gear, rather than something impromptu like using a hockey helmet, I don't see a problem, and it would naturally be a subset of Category:Motorcycle gear. AndroidCat (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little concerned over this becoming a subjective "is so/is not" argument over whether a particular item is fashion or safety gear. This question could be applied to many articles Icon makes, for example. Even Aerostich Roadcrafters aren't CE approved, so are they safety gear or just gear (even more so for Darien). Is it possible to make meaningful objective criteria for the two categories? -- Brianhe (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was also thinking of Aerostich previously. They don't have CE approved armor, but they do explain in detail why the armor that they do have isn't (they've rearranged their site since I last looked, but I'm sure it's still there somewhere). There's a clear safety intent, design, recognition of safety standards (even if they don't toe the CE line), use of recognized safety materials and ratings of such. My concern is that through use of the NPOV-hammer (along with its friends OR and Notability), it will be impossible to exclude gear that clearly isn't motorcycle safety gear like fashion leather jackets, which have no armor, no motorcycle-grade leather or stitching, weren't designed with any riding safety in mind, have no concept of safety standards, and are designed for the fashion runways rather than the highways. (Certainly people can ride with fashion jackets, just like they can with t-shirts. Neither are safety gear.) Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to insert their opinions, but they shouldn't be mindless automatons either. AndroidCat (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly replacing 'rocker jacket'[edit]

There is some discussion about removing the article Rocker jacket, as there is question whether that term is current. I suggest it would be good in this article to include a photo of the "classic" iconic black leather motorcycle jacket the link to Perfecto motorcycle jacket. This article should delineate the difference between the "classic" jacket as adopted by Punk rock and other subcultures and gear worn by actual motorcyclists. Wlindley (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising under the "Leathers" section needs to be removed[edit]

For some reason there is an ad for a War of the Worlds leather jacket store at the bottom of the Leathers section. It needs to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.191.171.11 (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BOLD and then do it yourself in future! Happily there are a number of editors, probably the vast majority, who will not tolerate spam on Wikipedia and so links like this quickly get deleted. Thanks for the heads up though. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SuperFabric[edit]

{{help me}} My article SuperFabric was tagged as an orphan so I tried creating links in related articles. The material is important to motorcycle protective equipment and apparel, so I wish to mention it, just as Kevlar, Gore-Tex, and Cordura are mentioned. How is mentioning those brands not borderline advertising? Or how can I properly write something about this material? ThanksJulieskim0202 (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss it with the user who removed it; if that fails, see WP:DISPUTE. I will copy this to User talk:Tedder.  Chzz  ►  22:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Julieskim, plenty of reliable sources can be easily found discussing Kevlar and Cordura as fabrics used for motorcycle gear. However, ownership issues aside, adding SuperFabric seems to be part of an attempt to advertise the fabric. Simply adding in the name of "keeping it from being an orphan" doesn't make it immune from being an advertisement of the material. As far as I know, SuperFabric is only used by Rev'it, who doesn't even have an article. I'd suggest reading WP:PROMO, and hopefully others will chime in here as well. tedder (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. Gore-Tex has hundreds of pages that link to it, from Libertarian socialism to Connecticut State Police to Eddie Bauer. These links have nothing to do with advertising; they exist because Gore-Tex is important in many different contexts.

SuperFabric is almost non-notable. It is rarely mentioned in independent books, newspapers or magazines except in conduits for press releases such as DealerNews. The most significant mention I can find is the book Extreme Textiles, a book that is clearly fails to cast a critical eye on its subject, and it is only one book.

The article SuperFabric probably just barely avoids the criteria for deletion due to this book and a bare handful of mentions in a few news articles. But it should keep the {{Orphan}} tag until independent sources can be found which connect SuperFabric with other subjects. These same sources should be used to beef up the references in the article itself. --Dbratland (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{help me}} Thank you for your advice, I will try to pull more independent sources, because they are out there. Now, if I include a source like the Discovery Channel (which featured this material in one of its documentaries) is that considered advertising? This was not a form of paid advertisement. I realize SuperFabric is not well-known, so I hope that factual information, especially one pulled from a documentary, would be sufficient as an independent source? Also, there are other motorcycle aparel companies that use this mtaerial in their products, so I will try to include those sources. Again, thanks for all the help. Julieskim0202 (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, you don't need to use the helpme. Second, don't worry about getting it included here. If it gets to be well-used, it'll be mentioned. At this point it's verging advertising, okay? tedder (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the helpme, like I said, I am new to this. I will go over the article and re-write it from a more objective point of view. But I am a little bit confused... should I be relying on other editors to recognize SuperFabric and adding links from their articles to mine? Again, thank you for the help. Julieskim0202 (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at this point, it'd be better to rely on other editors to add the links. Be careful calling it "mine", Wikipedia has a policy against ownership of articles. But yeah, especially with commercial articles, you'll have to be careful with conflict of interest to avoid making the article seem like an advertisement/spam/promotional. tedder (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry... I didn't mean to imply that I own the article. I will work on the current references, there are some resources out there that are not paid advertisements. For example, would an article in Future Materials Magazine qualify? It is an industry magazine, specifically focusing on the textile industry, and they've written several articles on SuperFabric. Also, would the Discovery Channel documentary qualify as a reliable source? I was unable to find an answer on that... THANKS!!! Julieskim0202 (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good reference material[edit]

This document from the NTSB Forum on Motorcycle Safety looks like an excellent reference covering all the major European PPE safety standards. If I have the time I'll start incorporating it into the article - unless others fancy doing so first.--Biker Biker (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Additional information here on benefits of motorcycle safety apparel. http://www.georgeinstitute.org/about-us/media-centre/motorcycle-protective-clothing-protection-injury-or-just-weather — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.57.13 (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not What I Was Looking For[edit]

Not even close; I was looking for NASCAR/Indy Racing Suits, not motorcycle racing suit. Please remove the Redirect sdo I CAN find what I was looking for.97.120.230.36 (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON[reply]

fixed. --Dbratland (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment Add?[edit]

The [Belt] seems to be a viable option to merge with this article, given its increasing popularity among off and on-road cyclists. I would do so myself, but I wouldn't be able to without ruining something. So if someone could please get on that when they have a moment, the link is given. --ICommando (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, Kidney belt should be referenced such that we all understand in what way it is actually protective equipment. — Brianhe (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confuses EU regulations with general concepts[edit]

The phrase "Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)" is enshrined in EU law, and refers to protective equipment in the workplace. Essentially it says that anything intended as a protective garment is designated a PPE item and as such must comply with certain safety requirements.

The PPE regulations mention that items sold for motorcycle protective use, must assert their PPE status at the point of sale. However it does not go into depth on actual protective elements, which is what this wiki article is aimed at.

Titling this wiki article as Personal Protective Equipment can imply that all motorcycle equipment is PPE by default, which is misleading. 

Directive 89/686/EEC on personal protective equipment (PPE)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_protective_equipment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.12.53 (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Required PPE[edit]

I just reverted an edit [24] that changed "in any state" to "in the United States or the UK". Reasoning: I know of at least one jurisdiction, not a state, in the U.S. which does require PPE beyond a helmet: some military installations depending on the individual commanding officer. Other U.S. non-State entities, such as federally recognized Indian reservations, may have their own requirements as well. - Brianhe (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Way to much detail to get into. This isn't a travel guide or how-to guide for those wanting to ride. Motorcycling at WikiVoyage is the perfect place for this type of state-by-state or country-by-country guidance, for those moving around and wanting to know what they need before the go. This is based on WP:NOTGUIDE #2, which is part of why Wikivoyage was created. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Errr ... Dennis, do you mean we should strike the entire sentence that starts with "Except for helmets, none of these items are required by law..."? - Brianhe (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And I still have a dream of refactoring this entire article into "motorcycle gear" or "motorcycle clothing" or "motorcycle kit" (UK). Crash protection is only one of at least three, probably five, main purposes of these clothing items. PPE is a weird, technical term totally out of the mainstream, and reveals a disconnect with the real reasons normal people buy motorcycle jackets, boots, gloves, pants, suits, etc. But that's a big project, and I'm not available for it now.

Directing the nitty gritty of regulation over to WikiVoyage would also be good for all, editors, readers, and Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to the closed section below ...If my understanding of UK English is correct, 'motorcycle kit' is the most succinct and accurate term. 'Kit' in the British sense is a broad enough umbrella to include helmets, gloves, clothing, and armor, as well as clothing cum devices like airbag suits, embedded communication devices, and heated/cooled garments". then While I like the precision of 'motorcycle kit', the phrase is just not used all that often..

Whereas it is not ostensibly 'wrong', and I have seen it in Motorcycle News, it is not, IMO, commonplace conversational parlance to refer to it as kit. More-probably a word/space-saving expedient in the author or sub-editor's tool-kit.

Kit is normally something carried in a holdall and conveyed to a venue, were it is worn, and removed afterwards; it is probably derived from a contraction of P.E. Kit (or PT Kit, both shown capitalised as a title - PE=Physical Education, PT=Physical Training). I have my father's kit bag from WWII - he wore a uniform or battledress, not kit, a catch-all term which also encompassed domestic/survival items.

A then-trendy 1960s term was clobber - probably from clobbered-up, meaning encumbered or uncomfortable. Motorcycle Riding Gear would possibly be the most-'normal' phrase - evidenced by the double-entendre and (defunct) brand, Bikers Gearbox.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very wary of conventional wisdom around military slang. Backronyms that Bowlderize the original derivation are common, e.g. "Big Ugly Fat Fellow" for the B-52, "Fouled up beyond all reason" for FUBAR, etc.. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 May 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, opening editor has agreed there is no need for the discussion to continue. (non-admin closure) jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Motorcycle personal protective equipment → Motorcycle clothing – "personal protective equipment" is an obscure, technical (US military) and/or legal (EU Directive 89/686/EEC) term that is not used in everyday English, nor in motorcycling media. "PPE" has been called misleading and confusing by several editors for a while; 'Motorcycle clothing' is general enough to accurately cover the article's contents. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. No such user (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object to this. PPE is not an excessively obscure or legal term. If anything, Motorcycle safety clothing or Motorcycle safety equipment is a better title. This should go to a full RM. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dennis Bratland and Train2104: Queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have sources to support this? I don't think you'll find the term in motorcycling magazines, or books, or TV media. You won't find the phrase even once in the #1 motorcycle safety book, David L. Hough's Proficient Motorcycling, or any of its sequels, nor in the MSF's book Motorcycling Excellence, or Long Way Round, Jupiter's Travels, or The Devil can Ride. Nobody uses these words. Catalogs don't have a "personal protective equipment" section, and motorcycling stores don't have aisles under that name. In 55 years of Cycle World magazines, the three words "personal protective equipment" only land in proximity to each other three times: 1968, 1999, and 2006. One of those is actually a column using the phrase in the context of US Military safety practices, and another is an article that is only about motorcycle armor, intentionally contrasting that with "what riders wear" generally. If you want to insist it's in common use, where is your evidence?

      The broader issue is that crash protection is only one of the qualities of the clothing riders wear. If crash protection was all that mattered, the clothing would all be monochrome gray, or safety orange. Fashion is a critical driver of the motorcycling clothing industry. It's a big market, and fashion, not safety, drives the differentiation between $40 jackets and $900 jackets, and it fills pages of magazines, and other media. Motorcycle jackets have inspired imitation in non-motorcycling fashion for decades, something motorcycle armor has never done (except maybe in The Kingdom?).

      Then you have weather protection: riders choose jackets, pants, boots, gloves and helmets with enormous concern for keeping rain out, or keeping warm and comfortable, or ventilation. Read any helmet review and noise is always a major issue, because noisy helmets are annoying, no matter how safe they are. Then you have new wireless communication devices, allowing riders in helmets to converse, or listen to music, or use voice controls with their smartphone that is integrated with their bike's controls. Headsets and microphones are integrated into many helmets, and this matters in the design and rider preference. Another non-safety, non-protective issue; if anything the distraction of phone calls and other gizmos is anti-safety. Not primarily a protective or safety issue. Then you have the use of clothing as a media itself: either for riders to display messages about themselves, with patches and paintings of words, ride souvenirs, or club affiliation. Professional racers sell space on their suits and helmets and this is a vital necessity to finance racing. The way helmets develop lift, weight the bike down, or clothing creates drag is an issue for racing and high speed riding. The photo at the top of the article of a rider with bare skin expresses the balance real-world riders make between safety and all these other benefits of motorcycling clothing or lack thereof.

      When you fail to cover all of these things with titles that only say "safety" or "protective", you're limiting the scope of the article. We could push these other things off into other articles, but the subject merges them. The clothing in question serves as protection, fashion statement, weather adaptation, billboard, and Bluetooth device mounting apparatus. All in one. There are sub-articles Motorcycle armor and Motorcycle helmet for safety-specific aspects of motorcycle clothing, but this is the main article on what riders wear, and the title should reflect that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm not weighing in on this proposal (yet). Note that Hough's More Proficient Motorcycling book may not use PPE, but it does index "protective gear" (confirmed in my 2003 print ed. also searchable online). So we're pretty darn close to the term used in the Wikipedia article. Practically speaking, what term we would we use to please English speakers worldwide: "motorcycle gear" is common in the U.S. but "motorcycle kit" seems to be more common elsewhere. As to the argument it's too technical, I'm not sure -- am too sensitized by the government usages -- but I found term in one of the top search results as a shopping category at Staples. None of this is definitive, which is why I'm not weighing in with a firm !vote at this time. - Bri (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Short version: Motorcycle riding gear Thumbs up icon Thumbs up icon Thumbs up icon (though I still prefer Motorcycle clothing because it's more inclusive and unmistakable).

      Many, many words: If my understanding of UK English is correct, 'motorcycle kit' is the most succinct and accurate term. 'Kit' in the British sense is a broad enough umbrella to include helmets, gloves, clothing, and armor, as well as clothing cum devices like airbag suits, embedded communication devices, and heated/cooled garments.

      Motorcycle kit would have been my first choice, but changing a US English article to UK English runs into (possibly insurmountable) WP:RETAIN issues. US editors will probably rebel. While I like the precision of 'motorcycle kit', the phrase is just not used all that often. 'Motorcycle gear' is pretty good, and it's in use often, so it could be accused of being as obscure and awkward as "personal protective equipment".

      Just going by David Hough's word choice, Motorcycle riding gear is the clear winner; it's at least plain English and not the bureaucratic, awkward PPE. The only problem is the possible confusion that it might have something to do with transmission gears or motorcycle gearing. Motorcycle clothing has the benefit that it won't be confused with anything else.

      In my list of topics beyond armor above, I left out the role of motorcycle clothing in making the rider visible. One could stretch the meaning of "protective" to include conspicuity, but I'm here to ask why we would want to. Hough himself makes a similar argument to mine above with regards to the idea that this isn't just protective armor: "Body Armor ...But even if you don't get to crash, your riding gear has a lot to do with your ability to control the bike. I'll leave it up to your imagination how I know this, but a couple wasps dropping into your boot takes a lot of attention away from the task of keeping the motorcycle between the lines. A sunburned neck can make it too painful to turn your head to find that car hidden in your blind spot... So riding gear is more than just uncomfortable body armor worn reluctantly day after day [emphasis mine] just in case today happens to be your turn to crash. Good riding gear protects against wind, sun, heat cold rain, and flying debris. A shatterproof face shield protects your eyes from grit but also keeps your face from getting wind chapped..." (Proficient Motorcycling page 37).

      Motorcycle underwear belongs on this page, and it's not usually thought of as "gear" and certainly not "equipment". While one could make an argument that weather or insect or sun defense falls under the name "personal protective equipment", undergarments designed for use with motorcycle racing leathers, or to deal with moisture under various kinds of garments are not "protective".

      Office supply stores often carry items like signage mandated by government regulations, and clothing required by law. An office manager reading a government code is going to see the term of art "personal protective equipment" and is going to seek items that go by this specific name in order to be reassured that they will be the exact items needed to pass inspection by regulators. It makes sense that Staples would cater to this market.A sign saying "Personal protective equipment required beyond this point" is advertised with "Complies With All Safety Regulations". With regard to motorcycles, it's a different story for PPE.

Hough et al quotes

Proficient Motorcycling:

p 11 "When experimenting on your motorcycle or practicing a skill, please wear your best crash padding. I believe that appropriate protective gear includes abrasion- and impact-resistant full jacket and riding pants, tall leather riding boots, full-fingered gloves, a genuine DOT-approved helmet, and shatterproof eye protection.

p 282 glossary "Crash padding: a motorcyclist's protective clothing, especially abrasion-resistant and impact-absorbing riding gear and a helmet.

p13 "Both riders are wearing protective gear, including high-quality, full-coverage helmet."

p37 Body Armor [see above]

This chapter goes on to talk about abrasion in crashes, then helmets, then conspicuity.

In Mastering the Ride; More Proficient Motorcycling, Hough uses "protective gear" once, on p. 113. Also, "retroreflective clothing" (92) and "hi-viz clothing" (back cover), "high-visibility gear" (14) "all the gear all the time" (20) and "riding gear" seven times (24, 64, 91, 92, 112, 189, 201).

In Street Strategies: A Survival Guide for Motorcyclists Hough uses "riding gear" 10 times, two of these are in the phrase "protective riding gear". "Protective gear" twice. The word "equipment" is never used.

In Path Hahn's How to Ride a Motorcycle: A Rider's Guide to Strategy, Safety and Skill Development", "protective equipment" is never used. "Protective gear" appears twice, and "riding gear" 21 times. "Personal is used 3 times, but not in relation to garments or armor, and "piece of equipment" is used once to refer to a helmet."

The MSF's Motorcycling Excellence uses "equipment" 8 times, but only in reference to things like lights or horns, not what the rider wears. "Riding gear" is used 10 times: "armored riding gear", "motorcycle-specific riding gear", "proper riding gear"

A broad search on Google Books (taken with a grain of salt) shows "riding gear" used about 2,800 times in proximity to the word "motorcycle", while "motorcycle clothing" appears in Books 1,950 times. "Personal protective equipment" in proximity to motorcycle appears only 986 times, mostly in government publications.
--Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should mention the ambiguity over the word "gear"; Hough's "protective gear" index links to p. 31, the section of the book on protective clothing, and p. 249, the section on maintenance talking about putting a bike on a lift in gear for safety. And, as a Northwest rider, my neck gaiter is a vital piece of gear although it offers zero crash protection. - Bri (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Motorcycle riding gear is a redlink, so we don't need admin help to just move it over there. The only reason for this request was the need to move Motorcycle clothing out of the way, but Motorcycle riding gear is available. User:Train2104 wants "safety" in the title, but has provided no evidence for why that is necessary, especially given that Motorcycle armor is the main article for safety-only gear, while this is the parent article for the broader subject of riding gear. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have pagemover rights such that we can move it wherever we want, if there is consensus on no objection to all the new titles. - Bri (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Caption change[edit]

The caption on File:Motorcycle rider and passenger in leathers on Suzuki Bandit at Ace Cafe.jpg I have amended to delete the word "racing"; the rider's apparel is largely obscured, hence indeterminate for detail, but the passenger is clearly wearing two-piece leathers with the legend Pro Sports. These two-piece types I do not believe to be race-compliant.

The style is known as Hein Gericke 'Tribal'; the same image appears on Leather jacket and I have tweaked the caption a little there. I knew about this for a long time but forgot until some turned up near me on ebay UK, although the lowers have a different colourway.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Motorcycle_personal_protective_equipment&oldid=1200688502"