Leg woes. Struggling.

[LegsLikeAShrunkenHobbit]

Got a bit of a weird question but please be kind I'm at the end of my rope trying to figure this all out.

 

Simply put: I'm 4' 11" tall. My inseam is only 26 inches and my leg reach just isn't all that. I literally make a Grom look normal sized, and I can't even touch the floor properly on those.

 

But I really want to pass my CBT and do an A1 (no interest whatsoever in big bikes, I just want a 125 to runaround on).

 

I have two big, big issues:

 

1. I systematically cannot wear any kind of boot. It is 1000% out of the question. I have a medical condition that means I have swelling that I can't fix or get any sort of boot around. Doesn't affect my ability to ride, my hobbit ankles are just too wide for boots. Can I wear trainers?

 

2. I am short, as mentioned. I have sat on a few bikes and a Honda Rebel (690mm) is the only one I have even remotely felt as if I could ride, but no school offers low-rider bikes like this. As a result, I'd need to wear not only trainers but I have a pair of those platformed trainers (they're about 2.5 inches and I've found that I feel more comfortable sitting on a bike in them).

 

Some context for point 2: I'm planning on getting a Vespa if I pass, and it really is just a local runaround in an area that I'd be using it maybe 3-4 times a week, and the area rarely exceeds 18mph speed limits (and I can more than easily avoid the roads that do). Once I have my licence my plan is to get a pair of platformed trainers, since that can add 2-3 inches to my "leg" and allow me to touch the floor (Vespa's an automatic, so no gear pedal).

 

So basically, can I get away with wearing the chunky trainers? People keep telling me "just tilt the bike", or to cope with it, because they don't realise that just cos their tiny wife can ride an Africa Twin by hurling herself off at every traffic light, not everybody wants to do that lol.

 

Thanks 

[Fiddlesticks]

You can get bike trainers, but they're more like basketball boots. At least they're soft around the high tops and adjustable.

[LegsLikeAShrunkenHobbit]

3 minutes ago, Fiddlesticks said:

You can get bike trainers, but they're more like basketball boots. At least they're soft around the high tops and adjustable.

 

I've seen those, they're mostly flat on the sole so I don't think it'd suit. It's the step I need more than anything.

[Fiddlesticks]

15 minutes ago, LegsLikeAShrunkenHobbit said:

 

I've seen those, they're mostly flat on the sole so I don't think it'd suit. It's the step I need more than anything.

Have you seen the bootlift products?

https://bootlift.store/

[LegsLikeAShrunkenHobbit]

2 minutes ago, Fiddlesticks said:

Have you seen the bootlift products?

https://bootlift.store/

 

Ha no I've not seen those before. Although I do wonder if I am wearing trainers and I have 'lifts' built in it'd be cheaper and probably easier.

[billysugger]

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that to do cbt,etc the ankle must be covered 

[LegsLikeAShrunkenHobbit]

15 minutes ago, billysugger said:

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that to do cbt,etc the ankle must be covered 

 

It's not a legal requirement though, right? So perhaps if I can talk to someone and explain? I can't believe that, despite being protected by law with my right to wear trainers, that I'd be held back because of a disability. That feels more illegal than anything.

[billysugger]

From gov.uk.

For Compulsory Basic Training (CBT), you need to wear sturdy footwear that protects your ankles and provides a good grip

This means avoiding trainers, canvas shoes, and sandals, and instead opting for boots or other shoes that cover the ankles. Leather boots, Doc Martens, or walking boots are acceptable, but avoid steel-toe-capped boots. 

Edited Monday at 18:11 by billysugger

[S-Westerly]

What he says, regular trainers are a no no.

[Fiddlesticks]

13 minutes ago, LegsLikeAShrunkenHobbit said:

 

It's not a legal requirement though, right? So perhaps if I can talk to someone and explain? I can't believe that, despite being protected by law with my right to wear trainers, that I'd be held back because of a disability. That feels more illegal than anything.

The only legal requirement is to wear a helmet.*

 

There's a case to be made for "reasonable adjustments". The question is as to what is reasonable, given there is a safety consideration, and there are other alternatives available. If you speak to the bike school they will have their own view on that, possibly informed by their insurance position etc.

 

*Interestingly, if you were a follower of the Sikh religion, there is even an exemption in law from mandatory helmet wearing.

[bonio]

As for the issue about trainers, there are two separate things here. One is the legal requirement for riding a motorbike on the road: you must wear helmet (and you may wear trainers). This is set in law (i.e. the only way to change it is by Act of Parliament). The other is the requirement for taking a CBT: this one states you can't wear trainers. It isn't a law. I'd guess it's a requirement set in place by the DVSA, since they are the ones who determine all aspects of how CBTs are run.

 

Google tells me that the NABD might be able to offer you advice. Their first piece of advice (see here https://www.nabd.org.uk/licencing/) is to get in touch with DVSA and explain your situation. Or you might want to talk to someone in the NABD first and ask their suggestions. 

Edited Monday at 22:38 by bonio

[Hairsy]

I really hope you can solve this.

 

As has been said, the issue around footwear for your CBT is not a legal one - it's a documented duty of care expectation for those offering CBT training. By having conversations with schools, you might find someone who's prepared to compromise - there's certainly no harm asking.

 

However, ankle protection is a big deal on bikes. It's not just about high speed crashes, it's also about protecting you when dropping the bike (some say that dropping your bike is inevitable - I'm more inclined to say its very likely but I think a positive mindset helps!). With that in mind, could you look into some sort of custom footwear?

 

I had a quick search and came up with this - https://taylormadeshoes.co.uk/orthopaedic/

 

Perhaps you could contact them and explain what you need. If they're not familiar with the bike need, perhaps say you're looking for something like Dr Marten boots with strong ankle protection. Even if they can't help you themselves, they may be able to refer you.

 

Inevitably this sort of thing comes at a cost but (a) you won't regret the cost on the day you need it and (b) although I don't know your situation, might an injury be more consequential / harder to recover from?

 

Let us know how you get on - I'd love to see biking becoming more accessible.

[RideWithStyles]

As fliddles and bonio says, There is a difference and line between law and suggesting. The helmet is law, everything else is suggested and the reason why it would be good.

Now a lot of these things are set in stone with a majority of people and average cases , while those fewer people with disabilities and true medical reasons and records there is leeway. it’s just that they dont want normal arrogant people to use that excuse rule/suggestion just because they want to and make them selves fit for it rather than just being for it. 
 

Now for having unique requirements going forward an extra outlay may be required, having custom boots (much like custom suits) might be a good idea, won’t be cheap as off the shelves but it will fit you very well and last. 
It might be worth chatting to a boot maker? RST, Scott etc do custom suits and gloves and I assume boots aswell?
A lot of mc coppers clothes are custom work- read there is one in the uk (id like to say Doncaster?) that does contract custom work.

i remember an article guy in France does them. They are about, you might just need to research and reach out.
 

 

For license  - medically if your conditions fall under dvla requirements should declare of impact (very similar to vision, disability etc), same would be for insurance.

now if you dont state these you may have an negative experience response as they do a lot of assuming your are a stickler for the small print, if you bring a claim and damages.

 

How youll ride with your own merits with the regards of passing the test if your license states it as i mentioned earlier, a little open minded assessment from the instructor and examiner while still ticking boxes.

That question is there a way for you to ride while it s still safe for you or anyone else? Depending on your confidence to carry it on.

id suggest popping to a testing site and have a quick chat with examiner (from my experience most mc ones are ex coppers so sticking to the book but they see a lot) of how they would suggest they would see fit. 

 

[rennie]

Hello and welcome 

Have a look on NADB! Lots of useful stuff on there about modifications and what you can and can't do. You don't have to be disabled. There used to be a link on here somewhere but I can't find it on my phone 

[Tiggie]

https://www.nabd.org.uk/ 

[Mold]

You don't need boots to ride your bike, trainers are fine, plenty of people wear trainers, especially commuters and casual riders. I wouldn't wear any footwear that's making you uncomfortable, it's not good for your health and it might take your concentration off the road. I'm not saying safety gear isn't important - it absolutely is, but you're not going to be riding much faster than a pedal bike and look at what they wear! Your most important items should be helmet, jacket and gloves. If you still can't reach the floor with both feet on your Vespa, see if you can get someone to cut an inch or so of foam from the underside of the seat, if they do it properly, it shouldn't show and shouldn't be uncomfortable. BTW, I'm 5'9" and I had to get a lowering kit for my last bike as I too didn't like leaning the bike at a stop.

[Hairsy]

10 hours ago, Mold said:

You don't need boots to ride your bike, trainers are fine

Terrible advice.

 

0:32

 

 

[RideWithStyles]

Yeah agree with Hairsy.

trainers are fashion/sports not protection. yes there is always a chance even with proper boots but the odds will always be stacked far better.

the way to see it is how much do you value your foot/feet?

Well I do the comic route of you might be nick named pirate, 1/8 iron man, putter if your a golfer. if you dont like the idea of that then don’t do it.

Dont think any pay out will be big because of it, its means tested so if you was wearing boots and lost your foot the claim will be high because you reasonably covered chances of damage yet still did, if you was wearing trainers, your claim will be absolutely the lower if next to nothing because the reason will be opposite, if you did wear boots you might have gotten away of losing it.

 

now when you have read how peoples life’s change and difficult it is when they are missing parts (physical, mental and long term health issues) it’s not hard to feel somber and appreciate something you still have yet they don’t and wont ever have again…yet if you waste it because you decided to wear trainers, sounds foolish.

[Simon Davey]

Guys, time to revert back for a read of the original post.... 

[Throttled]

On 05/05/2025 at 18:44, LegsLikeAShrunkenHobbit said:

 

Ha no I've not seen those before. Although I do wonder if I am wearing trainers and I have 'lifts' built in it'd be cheaper and probably easier.

 

I saw a demo of the bootlifts at the Scottish motorcycle show. For them to work, as in stay securely on your shoes, you need a shoe with a solid sole, toe and heel. They need structure to clamp onto, and would crush a soft shoe. They would not work with Skechers sneakers, for example.

Edited 5 hours ago by Throttled

[LegsLikeAShrunkenHobbit]

On 06/05/2025 at 08:06, Hairsy said:

I really hope you can solve this.

 

As has been said, the issue around footwear for your CBT is not a legal one - it's a documented duty of care expectation for those offering CBT training. By having conversations with schools, you might find someone who's prepared to compromise - there's certainly no harm asking.

 

However, ankle protection is a big deal on bikes. It's not just about high speed crashes, it's also about protecting you when dropping the bike (some say that dropping your bike is inevitable - I'm more inclined to say its very likely but I think a positive mindset helps!). With that in mind, could you look into some sort of custom footwear?

 

I had a quick search and came up with this - https://taylormadeshoes.co.uk/orthopaedic/

 

Perhaps you could contact them and explain what you need. If they're not familiar with the bike need, perhaps say you're looking for something like Dr Marten boots with strong ankle protection. Even if they can't help you themselves, they may be able to refer you.

 

Inevitably this sort of thing comes at a cost but (a) you won't regret the cost on the day you need it and (b) although I don't know your situation, might an injury be more consequential / harder to recover from?

 

Let us know how you get on - I'd love to see biking becoming more accessible.

 

Thank you, I am going to look at the links given in the thread and talk to some places. I agree that biking is horribly unaccessible, especially to shorter people! I see a lot of discussion from men-who-feel-short-but-aren't saying "I'm only five foot nine with a 31 inch inseam, I feel you" like bro, my thighs come up to your knees, pls stop  it's a struggle lol.

 

I never really wanted to drive so this would be so good if I could just pootle around on a little Vespa, they're quite affordable!

[LegsLikeAShrunkenHobbit]

3 hours ago, RideWithStyles said:

Yeah agree with Hairsy.

trainers are fashion/sports not protection. yes there is always a chance even with proper boots but the odds will always be stacked far better.

the way to see it is how much do you value your foot/feet?

Well I do the comic route of you might be nick named pirate, 1/8 iron man, putter if your a golfer. if you dont like the idea of that then don’t do it.

Dont think any pay out will be big because of it, its means tested so if you was wearing boots and lost your foot the claim will be high because you reasonably covered chances of damage yet still did, if you was wearing trainers, your claim will be absolutely the lower if next to nothing because the reason will be opposite, if you did wear boots you might have gotten away of losing it.

 

now when you have read how peoples life’s change and difficult it is when they are missing parts (physical, mental and long term health issues) it’s not hard to feel somber and appreciate something you still have yet they don’t and wont ever have again…yet if you waste it because you decided to wear trainers, sounds foolish.

 

I don't disagree at all, it's just one of those where, it doesn't matter how many times I am told 'boots are better' (which I know), I still will not be able to get boots around my ankles due to this swelling. It's annoying because they don't affect my daily life in any measure 99% of the time, but they just cause issues visually and with boots. Always the boots. I even have to wear those 'trainer socks' year round cos I can't wear normal socks lol.