The world of motorcycling is full of rituals and traditions, and one of the most universal is the use of protective equipment. Helmets, reinforced gloves, and of course, the famous body protectors – shoulder pads, elbow pads, back protectors, and knee pads – have become synonymous with safety. However, a closer look at the standards and actual effectiveness of these protections raises intriguing questions about the true utility of some of this equipment.

by Redação Courtesy Motorcycle Sports

According to European standard EN 1621, certified body protection must be able to absorb and transmit a maximum force of 18 kN for level 1 (C1) and 9 kN for level 2 (C2). In theory, this should guarantee a high level of safety. However, when we compare these specifications with the human body’s tolerance limits, the discrepancy becomes evident: the strongest bones in the human body, like the femur, have a fracture resistance below 4 kN. Thus, even the most “advanced” protectors don’t offer significant safety in case of severe impact.

Studies conducted over the last decade reinforce this idea. Research by Liz de Rome (2011) and Meredith (2019) showed that while protectors reduce the risk of abrasions and cuts, their effectiveness in preventing fractures, dislocations, or sprains is, at best, limited.

Industry Reality: Regulation or Protectionism?

One of the reasons for the widespread adoption of these protectors isn’t so much their effectiveness but rather a market issue. European standards require any clothing with motorcycle safety classification (A, AA, or AAA) to include these protectors. This requirement, while appearing to be a safety measure, creates, in practice, a barrier for non-specialized brands like Levi’s or Patagonia, who can’t compete with traditional motorcycle brands like Dainese or Alpinestars. This phenomenon, known as “regulatory capture,” occurs when regulations created to protect consumers are manipulated by industries to eliminate competition.

More concerning is the fact that these standards don’t encourage real innovations. As the standards are minimal, manufacturers have no economic incentive to develop more effective protections, since any significant improvement would imply additional costs.

Solutions and… Reflection

Does this mean we should completely abandon the use of protectors? The answer is a clear absolutely not. Some equipment, like high-quality independent back protectors or motorcycle airbags, far exceed EN 1621 standards, offering much more substantial protection. These devices, although more expensive, represent a real evolution in safety.

However, it’s equally valid to question whether the standard protectors integrated into jackets and pants fulfill their advertised purpose. For many motorcyclists, the solution might be to customize their equipment, removing ineffective protectors and opting for higher quality alternatives. Freedom of movement, combined with a careful choice of equipment, can increase riding pleasure without significantly compromising safety.

Motorcycle safety goes beyond equipment; it’s about defensive riding, situational awareness, and respect for human and mechanical limitations. As consumers, it’s up to us to question the standards and demand real improvements.

Disclaimer:
As a service to the sport we all love and follow, Biker Life posts numerous media releases and articles from a wide variety of sources on our website. Due to the large number, and sometimes short time available, it is nearly impossible to review each public release. These articles are written by reporters, writers or press officers who work for various organizations, event organizers, teams, drivers, riders, and other parties, and they do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Biker Life.