You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
@epicsteve I had my knee pads on at CV on Saturday - gives me a bit more confidence on the Runway.
wtf not? It's up to them. Ride for the crash not the weather etc. I can't believe this post to be honest. Anyone who dares to confess to riding without a helmet gets shot down in flames, yet you're flaming people for wearing too much protection!!
You can't win.
For some folks it's better to have too much and not needing it.
Saw someone commuting on a Hybrid in London the other day with full arm and leg armour. Now that is excessive. Rode like a twonk as well (didn't look behind when pulling out/changing lanes) which might explain why he thought he needed it.
Makes sense to me, on reflection, that when you are learning you would wear more protection as more likely to crash. As you get better and realise how much better it is riding without it, and your judgement and skill improves, you dispense with it.
Or you never get better so continue to need it.
Makes the mincers easy to spot from a distance at least !
But yes each to their own, it only impinges on my enjoyment when they smell and I have to hold my breath riding past.
lobby_dosser - Memberwtf not? It's up to them. Ride for the crash not the weather etc. I can't believe this post to be honest. Anyone who dares to confess to riding without a helmet gets shot down in flames, yet you're flaming people for wearing too much protection!!
You can't win.
Indeed. Massive hypocrisy
I'm really into minimalist riding but I do wonder if kneepads could help - a dodgy right knee means that impacts to the inside of it (and like Nobby's Piles from Viz, it seems to be an impact magnet) are really quite stupidly painful and take ages to repair - I just can't help thinking they'd be really sweaty and reduce perdalling efficiency?
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
I wouldn't normally wear body armour round GT or similar, usually only wear it when I'm on a big up/down ride with lots of rocks or when I'm doing something where there's an uplift (in which case no reason not to wear it!).
I was, however, wearing it a couple of months ago, along with a full facer, for some pissing about on the freeride park (cos I'm not very confident at jumping, especially doubles). Then, while I was having a slash, my mate happened to pass and convinced me to do some "less waymarked" trails. I didn't have my camelbak on, did have full facer and full body armour on, but I couldn't be bothered faffing at the car so just went for it. Was kind of glad on some bits (although I was sweating like a fat lass at a party and didn't have any drink...) to have it to be honest, good for the confidence so I could just go for it.
I hope that on the sections of red I was riding I didn't upset any gnarly doodz, and would like to take this opportunity to humbly apologise. In future I will make sure I take off my pads and carry them in my mouth or something when the gnarr factor does not warrant them, and will now go and flog myself to replicate the injuries I missed out on on (other) occasions when I've been padded up and crashed.
i wear loads, cos you can't tell i'm mincing in the photos so it makes me look rad.
[img] 
[/img]
that my son is techgnarlogy 8)
"Techgnarlogy" - nice one !
This thread has no answer.
Wear what you feel comfortable, forget what everyone else has/hasn't got and concentrate on your own riding and have some fun.
Who gives a shit if they are clad up like Darth Vader, its their choice and they are probably having more fun because of it and also don't give a monkies what anyone else thinks. And good for them.
Well to add to this debate, my mate was taking some noob pals rounds GT Blue yesterday and one innocuous comedy crash at ridiculously slow speed, he went down in a heap and has cracked his elbow. No pads when he ususually would cos he was just showing the new folk round and taking it easy. Upshot a while off the bikes he loves.
So what? So a group of us fly to Chatel tomorrow for a week holiday HE organised and had been looking forward to all year and now he can't go.
Crashes happen anywhere and if it means no long term injuries, well I don't mind pissing off twunts like the OP...and I would be willing to bet that Sean is a better rider than OP.
who was the noob?
Wish I'd been wearing some at Afan on Sunday. It would have saved me some skin. Caught up with as slightly slower chap going down Energy, who very kindly allowed me to slip past, giving me just enough time to pick up speed and completely destroy myself on one of the berms. Cue much embarassment and shame. I now look like I spent the weekend crawling about on sandpaper.
Thing is, I used to wear elbow and knees around Afan but don't bother any more. Maybe I should start again...
I had a crash at cwmcarn and caused a huge gash on my left arm. The day before I was looking at some pads but thought it wasn't needed. Now im not so sure.
Mate lost his front wheel on Afan on the northshore bit (decking with chicken wire on). Removed all the skin from the side of his face, needed a visit to A&E and is now scarred.
He has not ridden on a bike since, and the rest of us all rode in met parachutes for the next few years.
I now only use protection (oooeeerr) at uplift days and morzine but it only takes something like the above to shake you up a bit and bring you back to earth that crashing, even at XC mincing speeds, can serious mess you up.
crashing, even at XC mincing speeds, can serious mess you up
Can't say I ever forgot that. If you don't accept that fact, then don't ride a bike.
Anyway, I [i]like[/i] people wearing too much armour. Nothing like screaming past someone on their 6" trail bike, in a Met Parachute and full pressure suit whilst on a 23lb XC race bike, road helmet, and full-on jayboy lycra. Preferable whilst airborn. Makes me feel like a real man.
I've just got back from a trip to wales and despite the hot weather I 'padded up' as I really can't afford time off work at the minute and I've got a propensity for hurting myself in unlikely ways. Sure enough my seatpost bolt sheared on a rocky bit and I ended up having a 'controlled' crash into rocks, my arm guards took the brunt and i got off pretty lightly.
To be fair to the OP I prob looked a bit silly in my POC arms and 661 pads (and a spine protector hidden under the bag) and it was damn hot but I don't massively care as I'm intact and i don't end up in a financial hole because I broke a bolt/fell off.
If folks want to wear armour for whatever reason, then good on them, esp if it works for the wearer. It might look excessive to some people but who cares what other people think.
I wouldn't be surprised that in 10 ~ 15 years time wearing pads and armour etc will be the norm. Maybe trail centres or land owners will insist on it if your riding on their land due to previous court cases and claims against the land owner and you can't blame them if that were to the case. When you look back 15 years many people didn't wear a helmet, now you notice someone who does not wear a skid lid. BTW I don't wear pads etc but do wear a helmet.
So people wear armour and mince a bit at Glentress! Has anyone alerted the press?
Seriously who gives a flying - I wear leg shin pretty much all the time, it keeps my knees warm in winter and i don't find it excessively hot when its a bit warmer. I have the occasional tumble and can get up with small bruises instead of big bruises and gravel rash
Maybe trail centres or land owners will insist on it if your riding on their land due to previous court cases and claims against the land owner and you can't blame them if that were to the case.
twaddle. No landowner has had a successful claim against them and they couldn't enforce this anyway
Can't say I ever forgot that. If you don't accept that fact, then don't ride a bike.Anyway, I like people wearing too much armour. Nothing like screaming past someone on their 6" trail bike, in a Met Parachute and full pressure suit whilst on a 23lb XC race bike, road helmet, and full-on jayboy lycra. Preferable whilst airborn. Makes me feel like a real man.
There are probably underlying psychological reasons why you don't feel like a real man all the time.
"TandemJeremy - Member
Maybe trail centres or land owners will insist on it if your riding on their land due to previous court cases and claims against the land owner and you can't blame them if that were to the case.
twaddle. No landowner has had a successful claim against them and they couldn't enforce this anyway"
With our increasing claim culture it wouldn't surprise me that a "future" claim against a landowner would change the way a land owner would view things. A few years ago people would have said "twaddle" to wearing seat belts in a car or day time running lights.
[url= http://www.iomtt.com/en/News/2010/06/28/Guy-Martin-says-he-got-off-lightly-thanks-to-his-safety-equipment.aspx ]What a mountain biker said about his safety gear after coming off his (other) bike[/url]
piha - its twaddle. Not in the past nor in the future.
its scaremongering pish
No such claim is possible - its not the same as seatbelts - that had legislation driving it
"just can't help thinking they'd be really sweaty and reduce perdalling efficiency"
I'm not a strong pedaller, but I can honestly say that I forget I'm wearing my 661 Kyle Straits. However, I'm NOT wearing them in this hot weather because of the sweatiness. But as soon as it cools down a bit, they'll go back on for all but the gentlest rides. Apart from helping to reduce not-infrequent crash damage, they are excellent knee warmers!
I have only ever worn the 661 veggie elbows when descending Snowdon because they are always too sweaty for general riding.
I wear legs and elbows when I'm trying to chase people who are really good, for uplift days and DH-ish messing about.
It's all fine,wear what you like. But I do think that this stuff has perhaps been marketed at us rather hard in the last few years. It's now part of the "look" for certain types of riding, especially the annual Morzine trip. That's not to say it's useless, but just that we all now cheerfully spend another £X on some more stuff that we've convinced ourselves is vital rather than just potentially nice to have. 🙂
Regular use of a time-travel machine is the only way to correctly choose the right amount of armour.
heh, I love body armour. I use knee/shin and elbow and a met parachute on pretty much any ride that isn't on the road.
I have pedal-rash scars and marks from tiny crashes that are still incredibly obvious after 2 years. I accept that I'm going to get bruised and scraped but I'd rather lower the risk of scars all over my body as much as possible..
Also, seeing as the pads and helmet are very well vented I can't understand the over-heating comments. But I regularly wear the armour because I'm cold!
rkk01 - Member
What a mountain biker said about his safety gear after coming off his (other) bike
Yeah, I often get up to 170mph or so on my mountain bike 
TandemJeremy - MemberMaybe trail centres or land owners will insist on it if your riding on their land due to previous court cases and claims against the land owner and you can't blame them if that were to the case.
twaddle. No landowner has had a successful claim against them and they couldn't enforce this anyway
TJ - you might be right, but I suspect you don't own a busy mountain bike trail. I think if you were to ask the Forestry Commission about this, you'd get a much more cautious answer. In part, their grading of trails is driven by H&S/landlord's liability concerns.
Whilst I don't think we'll get to the point of armour being mandatory, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see warning notices going up on technical trails "advising" the use of protective gear.
Nothing wrong with that IMO, though I'm sure there will a spirited debate on here when the time comes about "political correctness gone mad".
Advice is fine - even sensible. The sign on Laggan Black advises FF helmets for example and IIRC there is one on spooky woods saying loads of people end up in A&E
there really is no chance of a successful case against a landowner tho. Never has been in the UK nor could there be - unless the landowner has done something really really incredibly stupid.
Its a load of scaremongering twaddle that landowners could get sued and the fear of being sued despite it having no basis could prevent further development. There was a thread on here the other day saying a landowner had demolished jumps because he was scared of getting sued.
This is why I believe it should be robustly challenged anytime anyone comes out with this guff.
I'm flakey on it Jeremy, but why don't the Occupiers Liability Acts apply in your view?
I haven't the wherewithal to do a technical argument with you, just interested in why you think the FC isn't potentially liable for injuries caused by a demonstrably dangerous jump, say, on its land.
rkk01 - Member
What a mountain biker said about his safety gear after coming off his (other) bike
Yeah, I often get up to 170mph or so on my mountain bike
Can't say that I have either... hence the [i](other) bike[/i] comment.
Principle is the same though - a m/cyclist isn't going to have an off at 170, hit a solid "come to a dead stop" object without being dead...
... but to come of and get flung down the road, trail, hedge and suffer abrasion and smaller impact injuries is common to both sports.
Of course, Martin was obviously bloody lucky he didn't hit anything solid.
But then again, same applies to us - hitting the trail and sliding on your skin / elbows / hips / knees / face at 30 is going to hurt. Hitting something solid like a tree or rock at 30+ is going to be even worse.
Wear what you want, upto you, met a guy up mam tor last year, full on power ranger outfit (his words) he'd got in trouble off his boss for time off work after a big crash so now wears the oufit all the time. Admittedly I do shake my head in wonder when I see suited up guys on DH bikes on my local trails but they're just being cautious I guess.
Don't think it should be used as a confidence booster tho, I don't crash very often so choose not to wear armour 99.9% of the time, if I think I'm going to crash on a section I don't don armour, I just don't ride it. Armour is supposed to be for just incase you crash not because you expect to.
Would be nice to have had it on those rare crashes I do have, guess ooOOoo's right about choosing armour.
I'm mostly ambivalent about what other people wear when riding their bikes, but it is endlessly fascinating to me how folk seem to get cross about it. I'll admit to giggling to myself at folk at places like Swinley wearing pads, but then I could quite easily fall off and hurt myself quite badly I suppose.
big dummy - if it was known to be more dangerous that it should have been because it was badly built or had other faults and the FC had done nothing about it then it they would be liable.
If it was built in the normal way a trail is built or the FC were not aware of the fault (unless they should have been aware) then they are not liable
For the FC to be liable they have to be negligent. To be negligent it would have to be shown that the trail obstacle was not of the sort you would normally expect or was substandard.
So a 10ft drop on a blue trail approached blind with no warning could be negligent. Nothing built to normal standards ie to IMBA spec would be.
It can be generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what [i]a reasonable person[/i] would do to protect another individual from [i]foreseeable risks[/i] of harm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence
what annoys me is people using bicycles to get around when walking would suffice. What's your hurry..?
well, strictly speaking, it's dead easy to drag someone into court - even if by your judgement the case would be a lost cause. but the amount of time, energy and cost involved in defending even a seemingly certain case could be a real headache. so I've got some sympathy for the over-cautious approach, even if it means catering for the incurably stupid and the chiselling.
I also think there's probably a difference in the legal situation between a landowner who simply puts up with people cycling across their land, and a landowner who encourages people to bring their bikes, their young families, and to pay for parking.
I imagine that the owners of trailcentres work on the assumption that they've got certain obligations (potentially legally enforceable) regarding the maintenance of even their gnarly trails. I'll bet they've got insurance too.
FC does not have insurance IIRC. Self insures
Yes - they have to maintain the trails to a reasonable standard but so long as they do so their legal obligations are covered.
I know about the law of negligence Jeremy. Do you know about the OLA?
🙂
Reaching the edge of my legal knowledge now BD
Just had a quick google and it appears the same sort of reasonableness test applies so yes - of course the act applies but so long as the landowner has taken reasonable precautions then they cannot be successfully sued.
Its a basic principle of law and all this talk of landowners being sued because someone is foolhardy on their land is simply twaddle.
When you invite a person into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the banisters .....”In Tomlinson, Lord Hobhouse said “..... Does the law require that all trees be cut down because some youths may climb them and fall? Does the law require the coastline and other beauty spots to be lined with warning notices? .....” The answer to all these questions, is of course, no.
S2 (2) of the Act is quite clear, it states ...... “The common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which he is invited or permitted to be there .....”
Ta for the tag.
I issue the same challenge as I have issued before.
if anyone can find a single successful UK case where a land user has won suing a landowner because of an MTB injury without the landowner having done something really really stupid I will eat my hat live on STW
if anyone can find a single successful UK case
I don't know whether there are any (and I'm not going to look), but this is spurious reasoning. A lack of (reported) cases does not indicate that a cause of action is not viable. To demonstrate the correctness of your position (which I agree is certainly arguable) you'd need to show cases where mountainbikers had [i]failed[/i] to win when suing a landowner for injury. Otherwise, the absence of decided cases could indicate:
- that landowners are extremely mindful of these risks and have taken entirely effective pains to avoid them;
- that no mountainbiker has ever sued landowner (perhaps it's a matter of honour) or (improbably)
- that no-one has ever hurt themselves in a bicycle accident and thought "where there's blame there's a claim".
Remember also that we don't know an enormous amount even about Pinder v Fox really because there was a settlement not a judgment, and a confidentiality agreement. I hope you're right, of course, but as a lawyer your reasoning on this strikes me as reckless, and if I was advising the Duke of Buccleugh or the FC it's simply not the sort of thing I'd be writing. 🙂
Ah well - I ain't a lawyer - I thought that was obvious. 😀
I am absolutely sure this is spurious tho. Of course the landowner has to take reasonable precautions but once they have done so they are safe.
So, so long as the trail is properly and safely designed, and properly and safely maintained - the owner of the land can rest easy knowing that, if they are sued, they'll probably win.
But that's a long way from "no claim is possible". Someone somewhere is probably earning good money advising the FC and others what "properly and safely" means in this context.
As far as TJ's challenge goes, come on. Once upon a time you could have issued a challenge to find a successful claim for asbestosis.
Not reading all that above, but was out for a walk with boy and dog the other day in a local (non gnarly, flattish) wood and saw a bloke in full matching Fox riding gear with Knee, shin, and elbow guards. Odd then that he had chosen a matching Fox cap rather than a helmet to finish off the ensemble.
I met a guy in knee pads who said his knobbly knees were easily damaged. I was converted at that point, live and let live and all that although I have and still do laugh at the odd stormtrooper gingerly making their way down Holmbury Hill.
All my injuries this year wouldn't have been changed by pads but the helmet definately helped.
I know folk at the firm that advises the DoB, I could ask.