Talk:Motorcycle boot

Merger Proposal
I'm not sure why separate pages exist for the various styles of boots, such as engineer boots, harness boots, motocross boots, motorcycle cop boots, racing boots, touring boots, et cetera. It seems they should all be combined onto one page, since they share most of their elements in common. Certainly, the current state the articles doesn't warrant distinct pages. Tedder (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that I agree. I think that there are enough variations between what is termed a "motorcycle boot" to warrant the separate articles. A motocross boot worn by dirt riders has little in common (except for being a boot used on a motorcycle) with the patrol boots worn by motorcycle officers, and even less in common with popular civilian street-riding boots such as engineer and harness boots.
 * Moreover, both of the latter (engineer and harness boots) are not strictly used for motorcycle riding but have a large following outside of the motorcycle category. Lumping them in with the motorcycle boots category would not be accurate. Bootedbear (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You state: "I'm not sure why separate pages exist for the various styles of boots, such as engineer boots, harness boots, motocross boots, motorcycle cop boots, racing boots, touring boots, et cetera. It seems they should all be combined onto one page, since they share most of their elements in common."
 * I also disagree. The different styles of boots have shared elements but do NOT share a specific purpose, other than as footwear.  An engineer boots, harness boots, motocross boots, motorcycle cop boots, racing boots ... is not a single boot, nor is an engineer boot, a motocross boot or a racing boot.  Your logic would have all upper body clothing lumped under a single category such as 'shirts' or 'blouses', whether they be either, or a jacket or a dress top or an undershirt.  Or perhaps all vehicles as 'cars', whether they be an army tank or a passenger car or a tractor trailer. A bit too simplistic, I think. Kal7 (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Armor to look cool, not be safe?
Idk if it's doable, but I really do believe that it's notable. There are a large proportion of motorcycling armour producers out there who make shit that looks badass but has absolutely poor forethought when it comes to fall or collision dynamics. For example, the touring boot shown on this page. There's a rubber stopper hanging off the external outer portion of the boot. Looks cool. But if you fell, that would bite into the ground decelerating that limb causing an axial torsion and knee / hip trauma like crazy.

It really does seem most armour is made to look pretty, but fails to serve the purpose it is designed for, especially with sport bike rider armour. Most of that stuff has exposed materials of the wrong hardness level to skip and avoid damage that would instead bite into the tarmac and cause enhanced trauma to the rider. Very little forethought, and absolutely no notable (or at least documented) testing is carried out on these products.

I'm a rider, but I'm not an editor on motorcycle related articles and don't exactly want to cross genres into something I don't know 100% about, but I'd love to see some common beliefs in the motorcycle community, and objective logical deductions such as the above included in the article. It's noteworthy, for sure. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thx for the tips. But..um, sorry, we can't add this information to the article unless there's the reliable source we can cite. I personally prefer medical source. If at least one established manufacturer claims these "decorations" to be harmful to the wearer, we can cite it in the article but carefully denote it only represents the point of view of that party due to the conflict of interest. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)