Should retirees/ civilians be required to wear a reflector vest when riding a motorcycle on base?

SFC Royce Williams — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 17:36:03 -0500

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?

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Jan 12 at 2015 8:00 PM

CMSgt James Nolan — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 20:00:27 -0500

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.

Response by SFC Royce Williams made Jan 12 at 2015 8:04 PM

SFC Royce Williams — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 20:04:12 -0500

I'm all for safety and ppe. It would just be nice if it was the same from one base to the next

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jan 13 at 2015 12:13 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:13:48 -0500

Everybody wants their freedom, but few are willing to accept the responsibility for the consequences of their own decisions or acts. I would suspend all safety rules for motorcyclists IF they would accept the fact that we leave them lying in the ditch after an accident. But, we don't. We pick them up and patch them up and usually end up paying for it.

The bottom line: We end up being lambasted for being a "nanny state".

Well, as long as the state is going to pay for your choices, the state gets to have a say in your choices. You want the state to pay for your health insurance? The state will get to manage all aspect of your lifestyle that affect your health. You want the state to patch you up after being tossed off your motorcycle? The state gets to tell you what safety equipment to wear. You want the state to educate your children? The state gets to decide what and how they learn.

Get the idea?

Response by MSG Mitch Dowler made Jan 13 at 2015 12:14 PM

MSG Mitch Dowler — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:14:09 -0500

This policy seems to be uniform everywhere. It is required at JBLM and the bases I have seen. My opinion is that the installations should just follow state law. Nothing more nothing less.

My brother-in-law is Air Force Reserve and DOD full time civilian employee basically doing the same job. He does not ride his Harley to work in Indiana because of these rules inconsistent with state law.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Jan 13 at 2015 1:53 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:53:51 -0500

That requirement is inconsistent with DoD policy.

http://www.uscg.mil/d13/docs/motorcycle/DSOC_PMV_TF_PMV-2_PPE_Standardization_LTR.pdf

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Jan 13 at 2015 1:54 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:54:57 -0500

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.

Response by SSG Paul Ellis made Jul 5 at 2015 11:44 AM

SSG Paul Ellis — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 11:44:04 -0400

What makes civilians special? You're not on your Base now You're on Ft. Hood. If you ride on Ft. Hood - like it or not - you have to follow the same regulations as the soldiers. If you're not from the area and want to ride on Post, then it would behoove you to purchase the required PPE.

At least as a civilian, you can ride off post in whatever gear you want.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jul 6 at 2015 1:59 AM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 01:59:13 -0400

Everyone who operates a motor cycle on any military installation should be subject to the same rules of the installation. When I operated in a traffic unit at Fort Hood I made traffic stops on motorcycle operators for failing to meet the standard for PPE. I issued them an 1408 which is a non fee citation and I sent them on their way. The citation was only a record of a stop.

Response by LTC Ray B. (Ret) made Aug 23 at 2019 5:13 PM

LTC Ray B. (Ret) — Fri, 23 Aug 2019 17:13:15 -0400

Then don’t ride on the base.

Response by CPO Ronald Caron made Mar 20 at 2020 12:23 PM

CPO Ronald Caron — Fri, 20 Mar 2020 12:23:34 -0400

Y'all just need to knock off the orange vest crap once and for all. Navy got rid of it over 10 years ago now. Maybe a reasonable step when lights on motorcycles weren't very good, bikes more or less came in one color(black) as well as riding gear. It took 9-11 and several years of hard conversations to get non riding leaders to "finally get it" that dressing riders up like road guards was more of a force protection issue (American servicemembers were the only people wearing reflective motorcycles) and was more of a reason to put the motorcyclist at fault (making it the member's fault and clearly not looking at anything else because "he wasn't wearing a vest".
Then they went to the "brightly colored" fiasco where they had this color pallet with a black circle that all the colors inside the circle were considered "brightly colored".. so some kid that barely knows how to read (they're not usually in Security because they are bright or talented) would hold their little laminated color wheel next to your outer garment to determine if it was "brightly colored". We finally steered it the right way by calling for motorcycle appropriate clothing (long sleeved at a minimum, a jacket, preferably brightly colored with retro reflective material is RECOMMENDED. Guess what, people started wearing their motorcycle jackets (although many are dark colored, just about all of them have at least some retro reflective piping and or patches built in to them and guess what... they were actually wearing something that would protect them in a crash because they are made of abrasion resistant materials and generally have armor or at least some type of padding built in to them in places that tend to come in contact with the road if you crash. Before people were leaving the 200 dollar motorcycle jacket in their saddle bag so they could wear their "brightly colored" long sleeve shirt through the gate.