Posted on Jan 12, 2015
Should retirees/ civilians be required to wear a reflector vest when riding a motorcycle on base?
13.6K
22
30
2
2
0
Ft Hood requires all motorcycle riders to wear long sleeves, pants, ankle high boots, gloves, an a reflector vest on post. Not all based have this rule. When I asked an MP on gate guard if out of state visitors had to follow the same policy he said yes. If I am coming from out of state and the base I frequent most doesn't have this rule then how can I be required or expected to have this ppe. I can understand making the Soldiers assigned doing it but civilians?
Posted in these groups: 
Retirement
Motorcycles
Retirement Motorcycles
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
4
4
0
SFC Royce Williams wearing helmets, boots, gloves etc is a great idea when riding, but I can attest to the fact that the vest didn't mean a darn thing when I got hit head on....
As far as "required on base", my thought would be that the base can require whatever they want. That requirement does make it very difficult for "visiting" riders. Normal riders would have to have that gear with them. This would only occur if they were local. It would make it exceptionally difficult for retired/civilians, who have no requirement to wear that gear in their normal course of business.
I would if (I were in charge for the day) waive that requirement for my civilian riders which would include retirees. That is a safety requirement for troops, in hopes of limiting accidents and injuries, which I am for. I would want to encourage my retirees to come back and visit. That requirement makes it tough. But, alas, I am not in charge, so, I defer to the local rules and realize that if retired/civilian and want to get on base, I will comply with those regs.
As far as "required on base", my thought would be that the base can require whatever they want. That requirement does make it very difficult for "visiting" riders. Normal riders would have to have that gear with them. This would only occur if they were local. It would make it exceptionally difficult for retired/civilians, who have no requirement to wear that gear in their normal course of business.
I would if (I were in charge for the day) waive that requirement for my civilian riders which would include retirees. That is a safety requirement for troops, in hopes of limiting accidents and injuries, which I am for. I would want to encourage my retirees to come back and visit. That requirement makes it tough. But, alas, I am not in charge, so, I defer to the local rules and realize that if retired/civilian and want to get on base, I will comply with those regs.
(4)
(0)
SGT James LeFebvre
CMSgt James Nolan Agreed. While I personally wear a hi-viz vest, I know it's not the end all of safety gear. I also have aux lighting and ride defensively. I do like the pockets so that I can stash my phone, some cash for parking garages, and ID for getting on post if I need to.
(1)
(0)
SFC Royce Williams
I agree as well. I am not opposed to wearing the proper PPE. I am saying it should be the same across the board. On Ft. Hood for example it changed several times the last several years I was stationed there. At first you only had to wear a reflective material during hours of limited visibility. During daylight hours you could wear a white or other brightly colored shirt. Then it changed to reflective during all hours, but it was your option. Pt belt, vest, etc etc. then it changed again to only refective vests were allowed and that had I be a certain type. I had a Harley Davidson reflective vest which was much more hi-vis than the pt vests everyone wore and got turned back at the gate. All I am asking for is one standard so that when I visit another installation I know why is expected.
(2)
(0)
CPO Ronald Caron
My thought is I am an ATGATT type of rider with over 150k miles on a motorcycle. Having the right gear on made the difference between me walking away (and having to buy some new gear) and a likely trip to the hospital to at least get the gravel scrubbed out of my skin in the two crashes I have had in over 150k miles of riding If you hit a stationary object at highway speed, you are likely to end up dead or with serious injuries no matter what you are wearing. While I always wear the gear, I also think that if you are educated on the risks of riding, it should be up to you, not some rule often written by someone who does not ride. Luckily I retired in 2011, i do still work on base and i look at it as your house, your rules... I do what I want when I am not on base and wear whatever silly outfit they want me to wear this week if I choose to take my bike to work instead of drive. If you are a rider and really care about motorcycling and the future of it, then get involved. Go to command and motorcycle safety meetings, get them to change the silly rules that do nothing to make you safer, but make you look like a clown going to the circus, encourage leaders to make sure the base has plenty of motorcycle course instructors and that they have training motorcycles so that those young privates (and 2 lt's) coming back from the Gulf with a pile of money in their pockets can reach out and get trained before they buy a motorcycle (big advantage there is they understand motorcycle fit and buy a bike they can handle instead of the biggest one they can afford). You can't change things overnight, but when the experienced riders get involved you can make positive changes and keep the "new guy" from creating asinine rules whenever there is a regime change over the long haul.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
While I understand the issue you raise and fully understand the difficulty it may cause a visitor, the fact is that riding on base is a privilege, not a right. To be afforded that privilege, one must meet the requirements. I am opposed to different standards/rules for military and civilians.
Having said that, I believe that, if there is something unique/out of the ordinary about a post/base requirement (like the vest mentioned, for example) that primarily impacts visitors (and, by that, I do not include folks who routinely enter the post/base, such as civilians/retirees who live in the area who should know the requirements and abide by them), some accommodation should be made. I would not be in favor of granting an exception to the policy for those visitors because (1) the policy was allegedly put in pace for a reason and (2) causes confusion for Military Police enforcers of the policy as well as other who may observe the "violation". My resolution of this would be to have an ample supply of the items at the Visitor Center (typically adjacent to the Main Gate) for loan to visitors.
Having said that, I believe that, if there is something unique/out of the ordinary about a post/base requirement (like the vest mentioned, for example) that primarily impacts visitors (and, by that, I do not include folks who routinely enter the post/base, such as civilians/retirees who live in the area who should know the requirements and abide by them), some accommodation should be made. I would not be in favor of granting an exception to the policy for those visitors because (1) the policy was allegedly put in pace for a reason and (2) causes confusion for Military Police enforcers of the policy as well as other who may observe the "violation". My resolution of this would be to have an ample supply of the items at the Visitor Center (typically adjacent to the Main Gate) for loan to visitors.
(3)
(0)
MSG Mitch Dowler
A motorcycle is a means of transportation just like any car is. Access to the base is a requirement for those having to work or having TDY duties there. Continued access to bases is earned by retirees and I am hesitant to call it a mere privilege.
On the flip side bearing arms is a right that has been denied to military accessing bases and denied without due process and with no benefit to national security. These service members are at risk by the military requiring them NOT to have basic safety gear like a firearm when they travel between military installations, home and other business.
On the flip side bearing arms is a right that has been denied to military accessing bases and denied without due process and with no benefit to national security. These service members are at risk by the military requiring them NOT to have basic safety gear like a firearm when they travel between military installations, home and other business.
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
MSG Mitch Dowler - Operating any mode of transportation on a military installation (or off, for that matter) -- be it a car, motorcycle or anything else -- is not a right.
I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but also believe that the right to bear arms can be limited, such as not allowing them to be carried in certain areas.
I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but also believe that the right to bear arms can be limited, such as not allowing them to be carried in certain areas.
(0)
(0)
MSG Mitch Dowler
I agree with you but remember rights are infringed upon all the time by government. The Constitution and rights as granted by God are to impose limitations on government not on Citizens. It is only the the point that rights infringe on the liberty of others that rights can morally be limited, other than that it is infringement.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
I'm all for safety and ppe. It would just be nice if it was the same from one base to the next
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google