ATGATT. Why? It doesn't affect anyone else?

[swbarnett]

In summary, have choice, but accept the consequences. Like, wear jandals on a bike, but then cover the cost of your own foot injuries.
I can certainly understand what you're saying. I used to think this way. It comes down the concept of user pays as you say. The problem is that who the user is is usually misunderstood. You think the user in this case is the rider. True, to a point. However, the user is also society at large as it also benifits. Because this rider has the right to choose wether or not to wear the gear we also enjoy the right to choose where we live, what job we do, and a miriad of other freedoms we take for granted. In the long term you can;t have one without the other. I justify sharing the cost of returning this rider to health because we all benifit from them being able to walk again. It makes it easier for them to be a useful member of society instead of a drain.


How stupid is the law in this country that lets someone ride a high performance bike (or a low performance one for that matter) wearing a G-string and a helmet?
Totally agree. Easily solved - remove the helmet law.


I considered charging a person riding a moped on Moorhouse Ave wearing a t-shirt, boardies and sandals (oh, and a helmet) with Careless Driving. I don't think riding in that gear is the action of a careful and prudent driver. Got canned by my boss.

Maybe it truly is me that is out of step.
Would you be happy if you were riding in ATG and you were charged with careless by someone who doesn't think riding is the action of a careful and prudent driver?

[swbarnett]

There's quite a few examples of people surviving total malfunctions, landing on a newly laid lawn at an emergency doctors house is one I remember, but it is pure luck. 99.99% of the time you are going to bounce and die. That's why they don't need legislation to tell people who are jumping out of planes that they need to wear a parachute, it's kind of obvious, and why there is no comparison with riding gear.
Exactly. Nothing is ever certain in daily life but this comes damn close.

[Ocean1]

Someone injured in a vehicle crash has their treatment cost/s paid for out of ACC's motor fund. Nothing to do with taxpayer...

So ACC levies aren't mandatory?

I'll be cancelling my subscription forthwith.

[Ocean1]

I didn't ask to pay tax, but I get to pay it anyway.
Similarly, I didn't ask to be a beneficiary of the health system, but I am.

So to then tell me that its OK to use force to minimise my likelihood of drawing on a tax system I didn't want to be part of anyway sort of makes me feel underwhelmed with concern .!

Zakerly. In fact if I paid the average individual cost in levies I'd be well pleased with the value of the service.

As they'd be keen to get me back on the earn ASAP.

But I don't. And the level of their service isn't indexed to the amount I pay.

So fuckem.

[Ocean1]

For example, if someone were pointing a gun at me about to pull the trigger I do have a right to prevent them from doing so.

Dude, see.... Katman figures that there's a guy pointing a gun at him and demanding cash from you. And as far as he can make out it's your fault he's at risk.

[Toaster]

So when you jump on your bike for a quick fang, wearing inappropriate clothing and think it is nobody else's business, spare a thought for the innocent motorists who help you when it turns to shit. Spare a thought for the two crews of Volunteer Firemen who interrupted their holiday weekend to come to your aid. Spare a thought for the poor ambulance guy,your accident was his third today!

Put on some gear, and if you want to go fast..take it to the track...chances are I'll help you out there too!

It is all our business as we pay high ACC levies and taxes funding the repair and rehab of these idiots.

My gear and the sensible speed I travelled at that day saved me from much worse injury in 2008 after I was taken out in a crash. My kids still have a Dad who can run and play with them...

[rastuscat]

My problem is that I'm in the job for road safety reasons. I don't write tickets to gather revenue, despite what most espouse. I write tickets to change behaviour, and thus reduce road trauma.

That's why it drives me mad when people are fully complying with the law, but doing stupid stuff anyway. Like wearing the G-string and helmet on a Gixxer at 100km/h on the Northern Arterial. Legal, but stupid.

I guess I just need to get over it, as it ain't gonna change. You can't legislate for stupidity.

So there.

[Katman]

The issue here is that I don't have the right to impose my line on someone that has a different view of the matter without first demonstrating that what they're doing that I object to has a direct affect on someone other than themselves.

I think that's precisely what this thread is demonstrating.


Dude, see.... Katman figures that there's a guy pointing a gun at him and demanding cash from you. And as far as he can make out it's your fault he's at risk.

You clearly don't have a fucking clue what I figure.

[MSTRS]

So ACC levies aren't mandatory?


Of course they aren't. Stop driving/riding/working for pay. Then you won't be asked for any contributions.

[PrincessBandit]

Wow, after reading all those pages I'm exhausted.

Guess I'm just a lucky little petal who is knows she looks heaps sexier and cooler on her bike under layers of leather and a helmet! - so with that attitude I'm in the ATGATT brigade by choice and quite happily.

Seriously though, after coming off my bike in a high speed slide I can almost guarantee I wouldn't be here today in one piece without my gear. I enjoy riding and if it means that gear will help me remain capable of riding for longer then that's all good by me. For those who don't want to wear the gear, when you come off ('cos it does happen sooner or later....) I guess you can just be happy with "my off/someone else [ACC] pays". Good for you.

[Grubber]

Now we’re going round in circles. I have never worn ATG because in all my years riding I have never owned ATG. I have also never fallen off. If I was of the view that crashing is inevitable then perhaps I would wear more protection. But it isn’t, so I don’t. And I resent people telling me what to do based on their experiences of falling off. Nothing personal, but you know, piss off. Your view of "some degree" just differs to mine, that's all.

Because you would die. Hardly a good comparison. If you ride a bike buck naked and crash you might die, you might not, it depends on a lot of factors which are within your control. Gravity isn’t.

Having said that, it is scientifically possible to jump without a parachute and survive if you can match your angle of fall with that of a long smooth piece of land, like a ski slope for example. Just needs someone with the balls to prove it.

Nothing personal but piss off???
So your view entitles you to eradicate all those that oppose it does it.
Jumping out of a plane with no chute is very much like riding naked. In either instance you may well live. It has happened but very much doubt it happened on purpose.
In my view you are very lucky you haven't crashed, not saying you will, but not saying you won't. Maybe you should stop wearing seatbelts too perhaps or does that not enter this equation either, simply cause it doesn't suit your argument.
Ok if you crash you may not die, but you will certainly receive some major injuries that I WILL PAY A PORTION OF.
Your arrogance in expecting me to do this annoys me.

You say that you don't have ATG. Why??
Are you super human and ride so well you will never fall off.
Very presumptuous of you i would have thought.
I have been riding and racing for some 35 years and have fallen off racing 2 times and 2 times on the road. Both road crashes were not my fault and those are the ones that are hard to avoid. I had ATG both times and only broke a rib on one occasion. One of the crashes was at 90kmh and was nicked by a car over taking me. I slid for 40 odd metres and got up without a scratch on me.
If you can guarantee me you won't crash and if you do you won't get a scratch on you and you won't need any of my hard earned tax money to put you back together, you go for it. Best of luck with that.

[MSTRS]

But it's all about ME! I'm the important one. You plebs can go get stuffed.

That's the mantra, isn't it?

[Grubber]

IMO if you ride a motorcycle without a reasonable level of gear you're a fucking idiot.
I loathe being told what to do however from personal experience I know that wearing jeans (for instance) and binning (at LOW speeds) is farking painful and has cost you lot (on a level) money.
If you ride on the road and believe you potentially won't ever crash then you're one naive rider.

I don't need legislation to be smart enough to use my gear

Makes perfect sense to me. The idiot part about never going to crash says it all.
Make all the comparisons you want from parachutes to HELMETS to seatbelts and on the list goes all come under the sensible catagory
Seems to me a little common sense can make all the difference and those who choose to defy the odds against them are apparently quite happy for me to foot the bill.
I don't ride expecting to crash but i do take the common sense approach just in case a bad day at the office may occur

[Grubber]

I totally agree. I've never said otherwise. The word direct is the important point. By direct I mean (as an extreme example) if you choose to commit murder.


Some might call me young but I was out of high school several years before my bike was built.

All I'm advocating is personal responsibility.

Your terminolgy for DIRECT may be somewhat extreme to me. Aside from murder, which i really don't think can be related to this argument, is on the outer fringes.

If all you are advocating is personal responsibility, then we agree. It sounds like we have a slightly different idea of what exactly that is.
I believe it represents your social and personal accountability to both your family members as well as your fellow man. That involves (for me anyway) taking all precautions to protect yours and your fellow mans lives and bodies.
Thats me all done!

[swbarnett]

I think that's precisely what this thread is demonstrating.
Yes, there is an effect, but the effect is not direct. The act of murder illustrates what I mean by a driect effect. Not wearing the gear can hardly be said to have a direct effect in the same way.

[MarkH]

Guess I'm just a lucky little petal who is knows she looks heaps sexier and cooler on her bike under layers of leather and, of course, a helmet

Chances are that you also look sexier off the bike without huge scars from where the skin got scraped off during an accident. I know many people think that it is fine to choose to ride while wearing a t-shirt & shorts - but I suspect they would regret that decision if they found themselves in hospital with road rash worse than they could have dreamt of.

Me - I like my skin and would prefer it not get scraped off if I had an accident. I would also prefer not to have an accident, but sometimes shit happens.

[swbarnett]

But it's all about ME! I'm the important one. You plebs can go get stuffed.

That's the mantra, isn't it?
Not at all. It's all about creating a society that respects individuality and engenders freedom and caring for all around you. For me it's as much about your right to choose to wear gear as it is about another's right to choose not to.

How would you feel if the position was reversed and you were pressured to not wear the gear because everyone around you thought you were a wimp for doing so? Or if those gearless daredevils got a law inacted preventing you from wearing the gear?

I wear the gear because I choose to. I like having the right to choose and respect another's right to choose not to.


As a side not, I wonder if there are any cyclists amongst us that are in the ATGATT brigade? Do you believe that bicycle road racers should be wearing the same gear as motorcyclists when they're travelling at high speed on the downhill sections?

[swbarnett]

Jumping out of a plane with no chute is very much like riding naked.
Where did you learn physics? I've corrected your post below:


Jumping out of a plane with no chute is very much like crashing naked.

[MSTRS]

Yes, there is an effect, but the effect is not direct.
Of course it is direct. A rider is hurt in a crash. The money machine rolls in to save him. He doesn't have gear? Chances are he'll be much more hurt. And the money machine gets to fork out more to save him.
How much more direct can you get?



How would you feel if the position was reversed and you were pressured to not wear the gear because everyone around you thought you were a wimp for doing so?
I don't like un-necessary pain etc, so I'd be wearing the gear anyway.

[Grubber]

Where did you learn physics? I've corrected your post below:

Obviously not a good communicator. Anyone else would have got my point....never mind, your on a mission, so it suits you better this way.

Actually i will expalin.....jumping out of a plane won't kill you just the same as riding naked won't kill you. It's the sudden stop that may well do that.
There is that better for you to understand!

[Grubber]

How would you feel if the position was reversed and you were pressured to not wear the gear because everyone around you thought you were a wimp for doing so? Or if those gearless daredevils got a law inacted preventing you from wearing the gear?

I wear the gear because I choose to. I like having the right to choose and respect another's right to choose not to.



Forgive me if i'm wrong but.....doesn't this sound like the school yard peer pressure we all warn our kids not to get involved with???

[Ocean1]

You clearly don't have a fucking clue what I figure.

I , along with most everyone else (excepting those still stuck on their mothers' tit) have noticed that there's very little evidence that you figure anything at all, dude.

[Ocean1]

Of course they aren't. Stop driving/riding/working for pay. Then you won't be asked for any contributions.

And my motorcycle is actually a space ship.

It's a fookin' tax. What the fuck else do you call an involuntary charge for services you didn't ask for?

[Berries]

Nothing personal but piss off???
So your view entitles you to eradicate all those that oppose it does it.
Jumping out of a plane with no chute is very much like riding naked. In either instance you may well live. It has happened but very much doubt it happened on purpose.
Nothing personal as in the comment wasn’t aimed at you, but in general to people who want to enforce their particular standards on me, when I think I am mature enough to make my own decision. I have no issue with the people who do ATGATT so am not eradicating their views at all.


In my view you are very lucky you haven't crashed, not saying you will, but not saying you won't. Maybe you should stop wearing seatbelts too perhaps or does that not enter this equation either, simply cause it doesn't suit your argument.
I never mentioned seatbelts because my bike doesn’t have one. I wear one when driving because it’s the law, it is fitted, it only takes half a second to put on, I don’t have to change out of it at my destination and it doesn’t cost anything.


Ok if you crash you may not die, but you will certainly receive some major injuries that I WILL PAY A PORTION OF.
Your arrogance in expecting me to do this annoys me..
Arrogance ? I haven’t asked that you pay a portion of the costs. I haven’t got a choice, and neither do you. I am annoyed by people crashing regardless of what they are wearing because both of us are paying their costs. For that very reason I am against the whole ACC ethos for road user injuries. I would prefer it if all of us paid an individual rate based on experience, age, crash history, etc etc, ie risk based rather than simply engine size based. But we have ACC and that’s the way it works. I personally think the bigger issue is the number of people crashing, not whether they had all of the approved gear on. It just seems like skirting round the main issue.


You say that you don't have ATG. Why??
Today’s riding gear is Shoei helmet, Dainese jacket, Belstaff gloves, Alpinestars boots and Levi’s jeans, fairly typical gear for me. I have just never got round to buying proper bike trousers. Simple as that really. I just don’t see why I should be forced to either.

[Katman]

For those of you crying about feeling pressured or forced into wearing adequate gear, I think you're being just a little over-dramatic.

All this thread is trying to do is to encourage the use of the correct gear.

It will be the government who will pressure or force you into it if encouragement doesn't work.

[Grubber]

Nothing personal as in the comment wasn’t aimed at you, but in general to people who want to enforce their particular standards on me, when I think I am mature enough to make my own decision. I have no issue with the people who do ATGATT so am not eradicating their views at all.


I never mentioned seatbelts because my bike doesn’t have one. I wear one when driving because it’s the law, it is fitted, it only takes half a second to put on, I don’t have to change out of it at my destination and it doesn’t cost anything.


Arrogance ? I haven’t asked that you pay a portion of the costs. I haven’t got a choice, and neither do you. I am annoyed by people crashing regardless of what they are wearing because both of us are paying their costs. For that very reason I am against the whole ACC ethos for road user injuries. I would prefer it if all of us paid an individual rate based on experience, age, crash history, etc etc, ie risk based rather than simply engine size based. But we have ACC and that’s the way it works. I personally think the bigger issue is the number of people crashing, not whether they had all of the approved gear on. It just seems like skirting round the main issue.


Today’s riding gear is Shoei helmet, Dainese jacket, Belstaff gloves, Alpinestars boots and Levi’s jeans, fairly typical gear for me. I have just never got round to buying proper bike trousers. Simple as that really. I just don’t see why I should be forced to either.

Fair enough on the first statement. don't think anyone is really doing that but instead just saying that they would think it better if you did.

2nd statement: The simple fact that we don't have that choice is fine by me although i would have to say your idea is good in practice. but because we don't have that oportunity then we must live with the system we have. That being the case, i resent the fact that i am forced somewhat to pay for your injuries and this is my point. No need to go down the track that you pay for them as well due to the system in place. The system is there and thats that...meaning i have to pay for your injuries and this is what i have a problem with.

3rd statement: It sounds to me like you have more than enough gear. Apart from the pants but i think you are close to ok.

[MarkH]

Today’s riding gear is Shoei helmet, Dainese jacket, Belstaff gloves, Alpinestars boots and Levi’s jeans, fairly typical gear for me. I have just never got round to buying proper bike trousers. Simple as that really. I just don’t see why I should be forced to either.

That doesn't sound too bad to me, the only thing I would suggest is that when you need a new pair of jeans the price of Dragin' Jeans is not that much more than Levis. Of course the protection isn't as good as with proper leathers, but it is better than standard jeans.

[MSTRS]

For those of you crying about feeling pressured or forced into wearing adequate gear, I think you're being just a little over-dramatic.

All this thread is trying to do is to encourage the use of the correct gear.

It will be the government who will pressure or force you into it if encouragement doesn't work.

You're on to it. Almost.
It is that school of thought that some refuse to wear the gear because it 'doesn't affect anyone else' that started this off.
We go from there all the way to a truly radical idea...wear ATGATT, and then if you do have a crash, your injuries are likely to be less, meaning the cost of treating is less and the time spent recuperating is less. Everyone wins.

[Virago]

You're on to it. Almost.
It is that school of thought that some refuse to wear the gear because it 'doesn't affect anyone else' that started this off.
We go from there all the way to a truly radical idea...wear ATGATT, and then if you do have a crash, your injuries are likely to be less, meaning the cost of treating is less and the time spent recuperating is less. Everyone wins.

Or, perhaps go with the general public's opinion, and avoid the injuries altogether by not riding motorcycles at all. Who is to say that they are wrong and you are right?

After all, those non-bikers who stop to give assistance when you are injured (whether wearing ATGATT or not), are also affected by the consequences of your own “calculated risk”.

Personal risk is subjective. Don’t be too quick to impose your own perspective on others under the pretext of “It affects me too”. If you do so, you need to accept that others then have the right to do the same to you.

[swbarnett]

Obviously not a good communicator. Anyone else would have got my point....never mind, your on a mission, so it suits you better this way.

Actually i will expalin.....jumping out of a plane won't kill you just the same as riding naked won't kill you. It's the sudden stop that may well do that.
There is that better for you to understand!
The sudden stop is effectively inevitable if you jump out of a plane without a parachute. It's not even that likely if you ride naked - no more likely than riding with ATG.

[swbarnett]

Of course it is direct. A rider is hurt in a crash. The money machine rolls in to save him. He doesn't have gear? Chances are he'll be much more hurt. And the money machine gets to fork out more to save him.
How much more direct can you get?

I don't like un-necessary pain etc, so I'd be wearing the gear anyway.
Yes, a chain of events is started. However, the rider is not responsible for every link in that chain.

[swbarnett]

Forgive me if i'm wrong but.....doesn't this sound like the school yard peer pressure we all warn our kids not to get involved with???
Exactly, it is childish and unnecessary. The only reason I get involved in these debates is to perhaps reduce the likelihood of motorcycles being banned or ATGATT becoming compulsary.

[davereid]

Or, perhaps go with the general public's opinion, and avoid the injuries altogether by not riding motorcycles at all. Who is to say that they are wrong and you are right?

Exactly.

When you crash your vehicle, your choice of vehicle is very relevant. Your choice of safety gear much less relevant.

To most observers, riding a motorcycle is seen as the "Darwin Award" winning decision.

Your choice of helmet design, your back protector, and armoured boots are all but irrelevant to the concerned and affected viewer.

So my answer about the question posed by the OP "ATGATT - Why, - it doesn't affect anyone else" is

Yes it does.

But it doesn't affect them anywhere near as much as your decision to drive a motorcycle.

That's the clincher. Getting on two wheels in the first place is the decision that really affects your loved ones.

[Katman]

Or, perhaps go with the general public's opinion, and avoid the injuries altogether by not riding motorcycles at all. Who is to say that they are wrong and you are right?


Hence why our concern should be on changing the public's perception.

[MSTRS]

Or, perhaps go with the general public's opinion, and avoid the injuries altogether by not riding motorcycles at all. Who is to say that they are wrong and you are right?


Point take. And it is a valid point. Which is why I agree with KM.

[MSTRS]

Yes, a chain of events is started. However, the rider is not responsible for every link in that chain.

I know what you are trying to say, but I look at it as linear. Change the first action, then any flow on is totally different.

[swbarnett]

I know what you are trying to say, but I look at it as linear. Change the first action, then any flow on is totally different.
Agreed. This is indeed the case.

The trouble comes when you try to lock down what constitutes the first action. Was it the decision to ride gear-less? The decision to ride? The rider's parents decision to have a child? Maybe even the decision to market the motorcycle? Or to invent it in the first place?

Do you think the inventor of the motorcycle is responsible for the suffering of a rider's family after they are invalided by crashing without the gear?

[MSTRS]

Now you are just being silly.
The (potential) rider is faced with choices. It is their choice alone to make, as they are the one responsible for their action/s. What they choose to do or wear is the start of a process of consequences, for them and others.
The rider's choice. The rider's responsibility.

[rabidnz]

swbarnett you should post a photo of yourself which we can send to the relevant health agencies, so they know not to bother scraping you off the side of the road when you smear yoursef along it :)

[Spearfish]

Agreed.

Do you think the inventor of the motorcycle is responsible for the suffering of a rider's family after they are invalided by crashing without the gear?

Yes, yes I do damn it!
And those who invented the pecker-head German helmet
and the inventors of tar seal
and ACC for making any of this a discussion at all

[swbarnett]

Now you are just being silly.
Yes and no. Yes, I was using extreme examples to illustrate a point.

Can it not be said that if the rider was never born then they could not have a motorcycle accident? If motorcycles hadn't been invented they certainly couldn't crash.

To blame the rider alone for the flow on effects of a crash is an over-simplification.


The (potential) rider is faced with choices. It is their choice alone to make, as they are the one responsible for their action/s. What they choose to do or wear is the start of a process of consequences, for them and others.
There is certainly a series of events that follows the riders decision. However, the choice that they have to make is only theirs to make because of the chain of events that have gone before (starting with the Big Bang - or Creation if you prefer).

There is an expression "Standing on the shoulders of giants." which means "One who develops future intellectual pursuits by understanding the research and works created by notable thinkers of the past". We can only achieve what we do because others have gone before and laid the groundwork. That does not mean that the "notable thinkers of the past" can lay claim to what later thinkers come up with. The same is true for negative outcomes. Notable idiots of the past cannot lay claim to the decisions of those that follow.

[MSTRS]

Notable idiots of the past cannot lay claim to the decisions of those that follow.

Or the postings of today's idiots...

[slofox]

Just had a lad pull up outside my shop on his bike (250 Hyo) - had a screaming demon muffler on it which caught my attention.

He was happily riding with helmet and no other protective gear at all - no boots, gloves or any form of jacket.

I had to bite my tongue to stop asking him where his gear was...

I bet he was cold 'cause it's freezing here just now...

[swbarnett]

Or the postings of today's idiots...
Exactly.

10 char...

[Eyegasm]

216887

Common Sense. Nuff said.

[Grubber]

Yes and no. Yes, I was using extreme examples to illustrate a point.

Can it not be said that if the rider was never born then they could not have a motorcycle accident? If motorcycles hadn't been invented they certainly couldn't crash.

To blame the rider alone for the flow on effects of a crash is an over-simplification.


There is certainly a series of events that follows the riders decision. However, the choice that they have to make is only theirs to make because of the chain of events that have gone before (starting with the Big Bang - or Creation if you prefer).

There is an expression "Standing on the shoulders of giants." which means "One who develops future intellectual pursuits by understanding the research and works created by notable thinkers of the past". We can only achieve what we do because others have gone before and laid the groundwork. That does not mean that the "notable thinkers of the past" can lay claim to what later thinkers come up with. The same is true for negative outcomes. Notable idiots of the past cannot lay claim to the decisions of those that follow.

What a crock of Shite.
Get back to the basics man....you know, the bit where we talk about safe gear and safe riding.
What the ....??? Can't believe you even went beyond that point in the first place.

Evolution is kinda out of our hands don't ya think!

[swbarnett]

216887

Common Sense. Nuff said.
I totally agree. However, common sense is contextual. What's common sense now wasn't in the 50s.

[swbarnett]

Get back to the basics man....you know, the bit where we talk about safe gear and safe riding.
The issue I have with this is that the definition of the above is always in flux. You and I may well agree on this definition but if we're not careful the term "safe riding" will become an oxymoron and we won't be allowed to ride at all.


Evolution is kinda out of our hands don't ya think!
Which is exactly my point. It's part of the chain of events that led to what the OP was talking about. We can only be held responsible for the direct concequences of our involvement in that chain, not those that also involve the decisions of others.

[Katman]

Which is exactly my point. It's part of the chain of events that led to what the OP was talking about. We can only be held responsible for the direct concequences of our involvement in that chain, not those that also involve the decisions of others.

The fact is that at some point in a chain of events sensibility has to be exercised.

See if you can figure out where that point falls in the following chain........

Motorcyclist has accident through riding like an idiot - Motorcycles should never have been invented - Mankind should never have been created.

I do understand that this question may overload that Libertarian brain of yours.

[davereid]

The fact is that at some point in a chain of events sensibility has to be exercised.

While Mr Barnett hasn't made an eloquent job of explaining it, he agrees with you. Or more precisely, you agree with him.

You are saying that "the point in the chain of events" was when the motorcyclist decided to commence his trip, sans all the Katman approved training and safety gear.

Mt Barnett is saying that "the point in the chain of events" occurred at some earlier time.

Possibly when the motorcyclist decided to be a motorcyclist instead of a pedestrian.
Possibly when the motorcyclist decided to be a motorcyclist instead of a bus passenger.
Possibly when the motorcyclist decided to be a motorcyclist instead of a cyclist.
Possibly when the motorcyclist decided to be a motorcyclist instead of a car driver.
Possibly when he was born according to his mother.

All are valid arguments, and his mother makes sense, as that was the one event that assured us Mr Barnett would die.

But you don't, as you apparently presuppose that riding a motorcycle doesn't affect other people as long as the safety rules are followed.

I am certain to die.
Most likely of a heart attack.
Possibly of cancer.
Liver failure might be implicated.
A.I.D.s cant be ruled out.
Suicide happens but is unlikely.
A motorcycle crash is even less likely.
A motorcycle crash without me wearing my helmet might happen.
Its possible as I ride without it lots in summer.
But I will, statistically win lotto 10 times first.

For the pleasure I get, compared to the risk, and given that I will die anyway, I'll keep on doing it.

I might even go and have another (deadly to my liver, heart, cholesterol) drink while I contemplate it.

[jonbuoy]

Wearing all the gear doesn´t make you safe
Riding safely makes you safe.
Riding safely with all the safety gear is even safer

What gets me are all the "fast" riders who think anyone not wearing all the gear are more likely to cause acc statistics to rise. Not wearing ATGATT will not increase the statistics, crashing will. Stop crashing ride sensibly or stop riding and get in a cage with enough electronics and safety gizmos to keep you alive. Meanwhile let the rest of us decide what to wear on a ride.

[swbarnett]

The fact is that at some point in a chain of events sensibility has to be exercised.

See if you can figure out where that point falls in the following chain........

Motorcyclist has accident through riding like an idiot - Motorcycles should never have been invented - Mankind should never have been created.

I do understand that this question may overload that Libertarian brain of yours.
First of all I am not a Libertarian. I believe in fairness for all, not my own interests and hang the rest of you.

As davereid has so elequently pointed out I do agree with you as to where the point of sensibility lies (I will admit I'm not doing a sterling job of explaining it but still some seem to get my point). What I'm trying to get across is that not everybody does and if we take the pious position of "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" then those that disagree with us will do likewise and we will fall in to an ever downward spiral towards total safety and complete boredem. Really, all I'm saying is "live and let live".

[scumdog]

Just had a lad pull up outside my shop on his bike (250 Hyo) - had a screaming demon muffler on it which caught my attention.

He was happily riding with helmet and no other protective gear at all - no boots, gloves or any form of jacket.

I had to bite my tongue to stop asking him where his gear was...

I bet he was cold 'cause it's freezing here just now...

I see it all the time here in the States - and a lot of the time no helmet either.

Nobody gets too excited about it.

And I haven't exactly noticed the roads and streets littered with mangelled and gravel-rashed bikers.

[slofox]

And I haven't exactly noticed the roads and streets littered with mangelled and gravel-rashed bikers.

Course not - they're all dead is why...

[scumdog]

Course not - they're all dead is why...

Where??

Haven't seen too many ambos or hearses scurrying around.

Haven't seen to many penis-minutis riders or idiot drivers either.