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

[yungatart]

You jump on a borrowed bike wearing a borrowed helmet...so? It doesn't affect anyone else.
You ride said bike like you stole it...nobodies business but yours.
Wearing trackpants, sneakers (that you haven't bothered to do up) and a vinyl dress jacket. So? Bloody gear nazis...who cares?

It DOES affect others. It IS their business. I CARE!

Today, while out for a leisurely pootle with a bunch of friends, we came across an accident.
Borrowed bike, outside licence class, and no gear apart from a helmet.

OUR ride was disrupted, while my mates picked up the shattered remnants of your mate's kawasaki, I sat on the side of the road with you, your blood oozing over me while I tried to clean the hole down to the bone in your forearm, dress the grazes on your back, keep you calm and conscious while we waited for an ambo. I tried to ascertain the extent of your head injuries and noted that your ribs were probabaly broken while my mates waved traffic to slow down. I'm sorry, I missed the neck injuries and the broken kneecap....

Others were trolling the paddocks and the side of the road looking for your belongings (we never did find your other sneaker or your cellphone)...made it hard to contact your partner and kids....

We WERE all affected by your stupid decisions and your inability to control the bike you were on.

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!

[Bren]

Oh shit janet, was that your afternoon or just some thought provoking material you found? Either way the message is still the same....Thumbs up, and if it was your afternoon then I hope the bloke is okay!!!

[Edbear]

Shame we can't give double bling for some posts!

Let's see what the riders this is aimed at have to say...

[yungatart]

Oh shit janet, was that your afternoon or just some thought provoking material you found? Either way the message is still the same....Thumbs up, and if it was your afternoon then I hope the bloke is okay!!!

I wish I had made it up, but no, it is how I spent Easter Saturday...not really what we had planned.

[FJRider]

Attitudes re: "the gear" often change ...

1. after seeing an off with rider not wearing the gear.
2. after having an off themselves.

[Bren]

Makes ya think.....I was going to run down to see a mate tonight...and was thinking just the jeans will do tonight....might put on the full gear...

[Nasty]

Tart ... that is horrid ... you are not a mad nagging bitch .... you are the one who deals with the shit that stupid people cause.

[Edbear]

Attitudes re: "the gear" often change ...

1. after seeing an off with rider not wearing the gear.
2. after having an off themselves.

The real shame is that this is far too often what it does take! Ambos and such as Yungatart have to go through this on a daily basis, yet people still think it's worth the risk and don't care.

[FJRider]

I had a white knuckle moment this arvo, when a Rav4 (coming towards me) decided not to run a Pukeko down ... and run ME off the road instead ....

I stayed upright ... and continued when my heartbeat got below 120 beats per min.

My headlight was on FULL ... what goes on in their heads ????

[Bikemad]

awww man......thats a crap way to spend a Saturday arvo youngatart.........my sympathies..........should be user pays i reckon.........if you dont wear the gear.....you pay for the care..............
why should our Tax dollars go to repair some muppet

[Virago]

Perceptions of risk and responsibility depend on individual viewpoints.

While sensible bikers will shake their heads while tutting vigorously over such foolishness, many non-bikers will take a similar position against bikers in general.

Motorcycling carries undeniable risks. While we head out each weekend, making unnecessary trips "just for fun", many of us will end up in hospital - or the morgue. Those non-bikers who stop to assist at such accidents, will no doubt rage about the unnecessary carnage. But for us, it's a calculated rsk - our choice. As it should be. It doesn't affect anyone else...

Drawing a line regarding acceptable risk is a personal choice - you can't do it for others.

Having said that, yes he's a farking idiot...:yes:

[Bikemad]

But for us, it's a calculated rsk - our choice. As it should be. It doesn't affect anyone else...

Drawing a line regarding acceptable risk is a personal choice - you can't do it for others.



but thats youngatarts whole point................it does affect others...............the people that administer first aid or even kids witnessing the carnage can be affected
and the Govt has removed personal choice for us regarding seat belts in cars............and helmets on bikes.........i think not wearing the rest of the gear should be enforced too is all

[Hitcher]

I care. But I'm not going to run after every biker I see not wearing gloves, or riding in shorts, or pillioning some young lady attired in jaunty CFM boots, jeans and a tee-shirt. For the same reason that I no longer give a shit about cagers who text while driving or who insist on having wheels on the other side of the centre line.

The Makers of Bad Laws will be along shortly to mandate standards of attire for bikers, which some bikers will ignore.

I wear what I believe is appropriate motorcycling apparel. I don't wear leather trousers because I think they're too hot in summer and too cold in winter; and I don't believe in fluoro vests because they're naff.

Bike shops sell fingerless gloves, openface helmets (including those stupid turtle lids), tee-shirts, sleeveless vests and chaps. Therefore it must be OK for bikers to wear these.

[YellowDog]

It DOES affect others. It IS their business. I CARE!

We WERE all affected by your stupid decisions and your inability to control the bike you were on.



These guys drive me insane and give us all a bad name.

[crazzed]

the Govt has removed personal choice for us regarding seat belts in cars............and helmets on bikes.........i think not wearing the rest of the gear should be enforced too is all

I will have to totally agrre with this
If you own a bike you own a min amount of gear.
Compulsery to wear no different to a track day. BASIC SAFETY

[Hitcher]

These guys drive me insane and give us all a bad name.

Omigod. Now you've done it.

[Edbear]

but thats youngatarts whole point................it does affect others...............the people that administer first aid or even kids witnessing the carnage can be affected
and the Govt has removed personal choice for us regarding seat belts in cars............and helmets on bikes.........i think not wearing the rest of the gear should be enforced too is all

I see your point and unfortunately it will take legislation before some do what is only commonsense. Law or no law, I wouldn't drive without a seatbelt nor ride without ATTGAT. But the truth of what you say has been shown in the US where states have repealed the helmwt law, only to see a dramatic rise in motorcyle deaths and serious head injuries which directly impact on the bereaved and subsequent lifetime carers in the case of the head-injured.

[Maha]

Great Post Janet, luck has it that he lives to see another day....
I dont wish ill on anyone but if this bloke was to spend a few months in a hospital bed then 12 months rehab then maybe, just maybe, he might think twice about his super human powers next time he gets on a bike.

[Jonno.]

awww man......thats a crap way to spend a Saturday arvo youngatart.........my sympathies..........should be user pays i reckon.........if you dont wear the gear.....you pay for the care..............
why should our Tax dollars go to repair some muppet

Why should tax money go to someone riding a motorcycle instead of driving a car :weird:

Freedom

[rustic101]

Legislation will do nothing!!! Education is more appropriate and has a longer lasting effect that any ticket or slap on the PP with a wet bus ticket.

Every Serviceman on their roulette to Singapore was taken down to the morgue, and shown the consequences of other actions (self inflicted or other wise). During one of my postings I had a friend impale himself on a Waratah at the entry to a bridge after failing to take the preceding bend. All the ATGATT in the world would not have saved him, nor would any Legislation (ok so it wasn't in NZ)..

My point is; if we can show someone (in person) what the effects of theirs and others poor decisions are, combined with education, then we may just reduce the carnage on our roads? The reality is we will never be able to stop everyone believing they are six foot two and bullet proof, or 'O its just a quick trip to the shops', but we can educate and communicate the added risks if they do not apply ATGATT or safe riding skills.

P.S Thanks youngatart for doing the right thing, just hope I never need assistance or TLC such as you offered that {insert description here} ;)

[Big Dog]

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your P.O.V) I still know people who only wear a helmet because they have to and only wear m/c jackets because they are waterproof.

As I have said to them before:

Helmet laws are not for those who would willingly wear a helmet. They are for those too stupid to know they should wear one, and failing to wear adequate gear will only drive up the cost of ACC levies and increase the risk that the sheeple will make full ce gear a requirement.

I would even go one further and say the helmet law is not for the guy who has been riding 50 years. They are collateral damage in this law. If after 20 plus years of riding (including at least one decent bin) you feel you can ride well enough to ride without it should be your call. IF your right it will be no further harm nor foul and if your wrong it will thin the herd (over population all that).

This law is for the retard who does not understand that his head is softer than the pavement and that they are riding faster than their head was designed to absorb impacts from (ie faster than a light jog).

To make this law enforceable we have to make it a blanket one.

Every person who chooses to risk their skin by wearing less brings us one step closer to having to have CE approved gear.


I would hate to see that.

As long as we have the freedom to chose though we have to execute our choices with responsibility, reason and forethought.

I lament the number of riders I have sold gear to who only bought it after I assured them that they can take the armour out.

I lament the mothers who lose their children before they are smart enough to fend for themselves (this includes the 40 year old first timer).

I shake my head in disgust every time I see some numpty in nylons and high heels.

What to do about it?

[Bren]

What to do about it?


Alas there aint a lot you can do....stupid does as stupid is.....not a lot you can do until they develop brain cell transfusions!

[Berries]

Compulsory ATGATT. Then what ? Compulsory ABS, compulsory air bags, compulsory leg protectors. Then what ? Compulsory third wheel ? How about a fourth wheel and ban bikes all together, seeing as ATGATT won't change the stats.


I wear what I believe is appropriate motorcycling apparel.
Me too. And I don't need some suit in Wellington telling me what he deems to be appropriate.

[Phreak]

Bike shops sell fingerless gloves, openface helmets (including those stupid turtle lids), tee-shirts, sleeveless vests and chaps. Therefore it must be OK for bikers to wear these.

Lol only if you are 'that way inclined...' No dispespect to anyone that is, just not me...

:Punk:

[Big Dog]

I care. But I'm not going to run after every biker I see not wearing gloves, or riding in shorts, or pillioning some young lady attired in jaunty CFM boots, jeans and a tee-shirt. For the same reason that I no longer give a shit about cagers who text while driving or who insist on having wheels on the other side of the centre line.

The Makers of Bad Laws will be along shortly to mandate standards of attire for bikers, which some bikers will ignore.

I wear what I believe is appropriate motorcycling apparel. I don't wear leather trousers because I think they're too hot in summer and too cold in winter; and I don't believe in fluoro vests because they're naff.

Bike shops sell fingerless gloves, openface helmets (including those stupid turtle lids), tee-shirts, sleeveless vests and chaps. Therefore it must be OK for bikers to wear these.

As long as there is a market someone will sell it.
IF it is a decent shop with any morals and you ask them their opinion they will tell you these items are shit or try to upgrade you to something usefull.

[davebullet]

And not only will he feel the effects long after, so will you. I've been fortunate enough never to have seen or had to help at an "accident" scene. I can only imagine it going through your head just before you go to sleep. It would disturb me for some time seeing something like that. One reason I am reluctant to go group riding.

Anyway, as bikers I think we should not be complacent about our gear. Replace if worn, check the stitching... always be on the lookout for more armour and protection and upgrade. Put some money aside etc...

I always shudder when I see the open face helmet and nothing else brigade. Even more prevalent on my recent trip to the Gold Coast. Saw a guy doing 110kph on the Pacific Highway on a GSXR-1000 with only a helmet, t-shirt, shorts and open footwear. Good Lord.

[CookMySock]

Tempting not to stop in cases like that isn't it. You didn't cause it. It wasn't you who didn't put the safety gear on. It wasn't you didn't know how to corner it properly. It wasn't you outside your license class. But it was you who has to mop up the mess and it was you who had to pay for it. You do everything right yet you still have to pick up the tab.

You can't fix the world. Let the idiots burn and look after your mates. Better they ponder their lesson while they sit there and bleed on their own.

Steve

[Nasty]

Tempting not to stop in cases like that isn't it. You didn't cause it. It wasn't you who didn't put the safety gear on. It wasn't you didn't know how to corner it properly. It wasn't you outside your license class. But it was you who has to mop up the mess and it was you who had to pay for it. You do everything right yet you still have to pick up the tab.

You can't fix the world. Let the idiots burn and look after your mates.

Steve

And with comments like that I can see you going far in this world. karma will bite you more than once.

There is no way I could drive/ride past a scene without offering assistance .. no matter how stupid they were to have caused or not have prevented the damage. As one day it could be one of mine that is caught up in this - wearing gear does not have a bearing on if I will give someone basic human kindness or not.

[marty]

You jump on a borrowed bike wearing a borrowed helmet...so? It doesn't affect anyone else.
You ride said bike like you stole it...nobodies business but yours.
Wearing trackpants, sneakers (that you haven't bothered to do up) and a vinyl dress jacket. So? Bloody gear nazis...who cares?

!

Although I agree with your sentiment, and sympathise with your situation, no amount of column inches are going to change behaviour like this.

I have done just as you have - picked body parts and bike parts off the side of the road - then having to put them back together at the morgue, and return bike/clothes to family - without being able to give them the (by then irrelevant) lecture about the ATGATT/license/experience myth.

Now, I just get on with my own life and deal with stuff as it comes along - I'd be a mess if I reflected on other people's stupid decisions and how they impacted on me, when I had NO say in their actions to start with.

[MSTRS]

...One reason I am reluctant to go group riding...

What has that got to do with what sparked this thread? The crashed rider was on his own...it was a group of us that stopped to help etc.

Some people here don't seem to get the sentiment behind YT's post. Her point has nothing to do with what gear, or lack of, that people choose to wear. It has everything to do with attitude. The one that goes "I'll wear as much or little as I like and it's nothing to do with you" When it is patently obvious that in myriad ways, gear choice does have an effect on others. Personal choice should NOT be defended on the grounds that no-one else is 'hurt'.

[Bikemad]

Why should tax money go to someone riding a motorcycle instead of driving a car :weird:

Freedom

sorry jonno...........dont get ya post.............all im sayin is if you cause the crash/accident/carnage..........what ever you wanna call it.............whether in a car or on a bike and you havent taken all practable steps to protect yourself or your drivin or ridin like a clown.........why the fuck should i pay towards your recovery..............the innocents im happy to contribute towards

[MSTRS]

Tempting not to stop in cases like that isn't it. You didn't cause it. It wasn't you who didn't put the safety gear on. It wasn't you didn't know how to corner it properly. It wasn't you outside your license class. But it was you who has to mop up the mess and it was you who had to pay for it. You do everything right yet you still have to pick up the tab.

You can't fix the world. Let the idiots burn and look after your mates. Better they ponder their lesson while they sit there and bleed on their own.

Steve

Knobend. Should we play 20 questions at an accident scene with the injured? Starting with "Were you wearing proper gear?"...No...Oh well sucks to be you...bye.

That was your daughter lying there, with broken ribs and kneecap, head injured, sundry gouges including one down to the bone...and someone who could have helped, didn't, because they have your attitude.

[yungatart]

Compulsory ATGATT. Then what ? Compulsory ABS, compulsory air bags, compulsory leg protectors. Then what ? Compulsory third wheel ? How about a fourth wheel and ban bikes all together, seeing as ATGATT won't change the stats.


I always wear all the gear, but there is no way I want to see legislation forcing me to.


And not only will he feel the effects long after, so will you. I've been fortunate enough never to have seen or had to help at an "accident" scene. I can only imagine it going through your head just before you go to sleep. It would disturb me for some time seeing something like that. One reason I am reluctant to go group riding..

Actually, TBH, I am just pissed off that we couldn't finish our ride on our new wheels. I slept perfectly well, thank you, although given the spread of debris and the damage done to the bike, I could have been at the scene of a fatal very easilly. That would have affected me more....


Tempting not to stop in cases like that isn't it. You didn't cause it. It wasn't you who didn't put the safety gear on. It wasn't you didn't know how to corner it properly. It wasn't you outside your license class. But it was you who has to mop up the mess and it was you who had to pay for it. You do everything right yet you still have to pick up the tab.

You can't fix the world. Let the idiots burn and look after your mates. Better they ponder their lesson while they sit there and bleed on their own.

Steve

I am an ex nurse. As such, I took the Hippocratic Oath. I am honour bound to help. Even without that, I am a member of the human race and I feel it is only common decency to help...yes, even you with your appaling attitude would receive help from me in the same circumstances...it is not my job to determine who is worthy of care.

[Edbear]

What has that got to do with what sparked this thread? The crashed rider was on his own...it was a group of us that stopped to help etc.

Some people here don't seem to get the sentiment behind YT's post. Her point has nothing to do with what gear, or lack of, that people choose to wear. It has everything to do with attitude. The one that goes "I'll wear as much or little as I like and it's nothing to do with you" When it is patently obvious that in myriad ways, gear choice does have an effect on others. Personal choice should NOT be defended on the grounds that no-one else is 'hurt'.

Some people needed that reminder. It is natural to stop and help and one thing that makes us human. Members can bleat all they like about personal rights and freedoms, and certainly I don't need the Law to convince me to wear appropriate gear or ride to the conditions. As one poster said, education is the key, but too many people have no interest in being educated. Witness the drongo's on TV and in the news who know very well the consequences, they just don't care.

That is why lawmakers believe that legislation will help. By making something a prosecutable offence with financial and social consequences, many people will, either reluctantly or willingly, comply and thereby save some grief.


I always wear all the gear, but there is no way I want to see legislation forcing me to.

Actually, TBH, I am just pissed off that we couldn't finish our ride on our new wheels. I slept perfectly well, thank you, although given the spread of debris and the damage done to the bike, I could have been at the scene of a fatal very easilly. That would have affected me more....

I am an ex nurse. As such, I took the Hippocratic Oath. I am honour bound to help. Even without that, I am a member of the human race and I feel it is only common decency to help...yes, even you with your appaling attitude would receive help from me in the same circumstances...it is not my job to determine who is worthy of care.

People such as yourself don't need a law, and therefore the law is of little consequence to you, (or me), as we only do what we consider right anyway. So it is of no concern to me whether they introduce it or not.

Compassion and empathy are uniquely human traits and it is a hard person who could ignore human suffering in the situation you had to deal with. Sure you might be mad at the idiot and even tell him off while you attend to him, but you would still do all in your power to help.

[Owl]

Let the idiots burn and look after your mates.

I'd be surprised if you had any with that attitude DB!

[caseye]

I care. But I'm not going to run after every biker I see not wearing gloves, or riding in shorts, or pillioning some young lady attired in jaunty CFM boots, jeans and a tee-shirt. For the same reason that I no longer give a shit about cagers who text while driving or who insist on having wheels on the other side of the centre line.

The Makers of Bad Laws will be along shortly to mandate standards of attire for bikers, which some bikers will ignore.

I wear what I believe is appropriate motorcycling apparel. I don't wear leather trousers because I think they're too hot in summer and too cold in winter; and I don't believe in fluoro vests because they're naff.

Bike shops sell fingerless gloves, openface helmets (including those stupid turtle lids), tee-shirts, sleeveless vests and chaps. Therefore it must be OK for bikers to wear these.

Hitcher, I know what you are saying and I live by the darwinian theory, but we motorcyclists that do use the gear,(any and all of it be it leather, cordura, synthetic etc doesn't matter) that do abide by the rules of our roads(Ok not all the time) are getting tarred with the same brush.
I've said it before, it's getting close to a time when we voluntarily introduce a minimum standard of Gear or let the cage driving bike hating polies make it for us.
Given that as an option I for one would be glad of seeing a minimum gear requirement for anyone riding a motorcycle, said gear to be produced at time of WOF, and as I've also said before, if it's proved that it was not being used and a rider crashes.
No ACC!
Tough???
Maybe, who cares about a dumb arse who wont protect themsleves for the sake of wearing readily available, inexpensive protective gear.
Not me, not anymore.
yungatart I'm behind you 100% on this message, it does affect others all the way down the chain, it is time we collectively pulled our socks up and cleaned up the appalling lack of respect for themselves and other roads users shown by these hot shot phangers!

[MSTRS]

...appalling lack of respect for themselves and other roads users shown by these hot shot phangers!

This particular 'hot shot phanger' didn't look so flash with his shoes gone (only found one), his (vinyl) jacket found some 50 feet away from where he lay and his bike looking like it'd been the target of a rugby team weilding sledgehammers...

[marty]

So did 'this' guy survive? Were his injuries (fatal or not) any different because of his gear (ATGATT is the core of your post) or was it his experience/attitude that primarily got him hurt?

[Owl]

I've said it before, it's getting close to a time when we voluntarily introduce a minimum standard of Gear or let the cage driving bike hating polies make it for us.
Given that as an option I for one would be glad of seeing a minimum gear requirement for anyone riding a motorcycle, said gear to be produced at time of WOF, and as I've also said before, if it's proved that it was not being used and a rider crashes.
No ACC!
Tough???
Maybe, who cares about a dumb arse who wont protect themsleves for the sake of wearing readily available, inexpensive protective gear.
Not me, not anymore.

Let's just ban motorcycles, sports, DIY'ers and all recreational activities. Oh and better ban the work force too, cause they do stupid shit from time to time.

Fuck it, why should I have to pay for the 8 year old who climbs a tree without a safety harness?

[MSTRS]

His injuries could indeed have been life threatening (the broken ribs, anyway) but the rest could've been non-existent if he'd been wearing proper gear. It was his speed, inability and probable attitude that caused him to bin it in the first place. He was lucky it wasn't much worse.
There are corners dotted about the place, that are little different to that one, but TPTB see fit to install safety devices such as armco or cheesecutter...

[caseye]

Let's just ban motorcycles, sports, DIY'ers and all recreational activities. Oh and better ban the work force too, cause they do stupid shit from time to time.

Fuck it, why should I have to pay for the 8 year old who climbs a tree without a safety harness?

Hell why Not! That way there'd be no carnage and no one to blsme so the insurance.Govt companies can go sue them for the "at wrong" fees.
The attitude of people who ride stupidly and don't wear at least minimum gear is what needs to change.
It isn't going to at the present moment because there is no incentive for it to do so.
As riders ourselves who do take riding responsibly it is up to us to do what we can to educate those who don't know or dont care as much as we can before the Govt does get involved and simply legislate.
I am arguing that if nothing is done by us and as many of us as possible as soon as possible that this is exactly what will happen.
Legislation that blanket covers all aspects and all intelligences of bike riders and rding.
No personal choice, no freedom to do anything without looking to big brother.
Big brother wants everyone that odes dangerous stuff to screw up so they can step in and make laws.
if we can get the bulk of our fellow motorcyclists to voluntarily abide by a minimum standard of gear to be worn we'd be stopping Big brother not giving him a green light to simply legislate us off the road as you seem to be suggesting.
W've had freedom for a long time, whats happening to it these days is that everytime we turn around a litlte bit more is being taken off us and the reasoning is simple, if you won't do it responsibly we'll do it for you!
I'd rather they didnt.

[yungatart]

So did 'this' guy survive? Were his injuries (fatal or not) any different because of his gear (ATGATT is the core of your post) or was it his experience/attitude that primarily got him hurt?

As far as I know, he survived.
But you misunderstand, ATGATT is NOT the core of my post. It is that 'your' actions can/do impact on others. Your decision to wear what you choose can devastate others who have to clean up the mess.


One more thing, I suspect (although I do not know for a fact), that I was the only one of about 15 people at that site who had First Aid Training.
Sooner or later, you are going to need it. We waited over an hour for the professionals to get there...it is a long time, if you have no idea what to do.

[caseye]

As far as I know, he survived.
But you misunderstand, ATGATT is NOT the core of my post. It is that 'your' actions can/do impact on others. Your decision to wear what you choose can devastate others who have to clean up the mess.


One more thing, I suspect (although I do not know for a fact), that I was the only one of about 15 people at that site who had First Aid Training.
Sooner or later, you are going to need it. We waited over an hour for the professionals to get there...it is a long time, if you have no idea what to do.

Scary isn't it? to think that it can take that long for the ambo's to arrive ( no fault of thiers, theres simply not enough of them out there) and as YT has said if you are someone arriving at that scene and you do know first aid, you are quite possibly the only thing standing between that person and death.
I could never ride/drive past an accident, I've stopped at so many and assisted ( first aid and advanced, many years ago) at so many i've lost count.
Who was right or worng never comes into it, who's in the most need of attention whats happening on the roadway around the scene, who's called, keeps calling for emergency services, who has what is needed to help stabilise the patient/s that all kicks in and off you go.
Once I had a doctor turn up at a scene and ask who needed what, I told him what each of the three people involved had had done and why, he was mildly impressed and told one of the three that but for the way his position and injury had beenn handled by me and a couple of others he'd be DOA. Ruptured spleen. Lucky boy that we did not roll him over from already being in the recovery position though still with the front end of a landcruiser resting on his hip. We lifted the cruiser and slid him out from under it, keeping him still and on his side with blankets etc from neighbours.
He was, until my wifes bike accident(debateable, brought down by criminal negligence really) recently the first medically trained person I've ever had show up at an accident.The brilliant Lady who saw it happen in front of her was a nurse from Muddlemore and she got stuck right, I stood back and simply assisted, bliss that was.
yungatarts comments are so bang on it's scary, attitude can be changed, education is one of the answers, legislation would be a disaster, but with no one steering a concerted effort to change attitudes it is Govt who will eventually step in and legislate.
If we dont want that to happen we have to convince those who would ride wthout thought for their own safety and the consequences for all the people down the line, those attending their accident,the ambo's, the firemen and women, the Police officers,the nurses, the doctors and the caregivers who are with them for months afterwards(.If they're lucky) that they need to think ahead and of others.
I've not yet memtioned their family, their friends, their loved ones, who all have their lives thrown into complete turmoil for days, weeks, months, years on end, all because they! didn't think responsibly, or worse simply couldn't be stuffed regardless.
Attitude is everything.

[RDjase]

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=202758



As far as I know, he survived.
But you misunderstand, ATGATT is NOT the core of my post. It is that 'your' actions can/do impact on others. Your decision to wear what you choose can devastate others who have to clean up the mess.


One more thing, I suspect (although I do not know for a fact), that I was the only one of about 15 people at that site who had First Aid Training.
Sooner or later, you are going to need it. We waited over an hour for the professionals to get there...it is a long time, if you have no idea what to do.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=202757

It was a long time waiting for the ambo, It didnt help that there were 2 bike crashes off 2 differnt roads that connect to Argyll road at the same time, plus a fire and a car crash in ypuk.
Busy day for emergencys in CHB,

All the 1st aid i know is the the ABC and recovery position, It was hard work keeping him concious after the delays with the ambo,
Very lucky man, he could have quite easily gone thru tha fence at high speed and been killed, lucky he went thru the long grass for 100mtrs and didnt get hit by his bike or ended up on the road and taken out by a car, OR that we didnt end up wearing his bike flying thru the air if we arrived a few minutes earlier

Heres the pics of his bike, dont know how too put them on here with a link

[Ronin]

Tempting not to stop in cases like that isn't it.

No. Not even a little bit. I would suggest that if it is tempting to you that you seek help


You didn't cause it. It wasn't you who didn't put the safety gear on. It wasn't you didn't know how to corner it properly. It wasn't you outside your license class. But it was you who has to mop up the mess and it was you who had to pay for it. You do everything right yet you still have to pick up the tab.

You can't fix the world. Let the idiots burn and look after your mates. Better they ponder their lesson while they sit there and bleed on their own.

Steve

You truly disturb me Stevey Boy, far behond the normal "oh look DB is a dick" disturb. I'm not sure I have ever seen someone with such a lack of empathy. You know it's not normal aye?

[marty]

As far as I know, he survived.
But you misunderstand, ATGATT is NOT the core of my post.

Sorry, but I got that from the heading. Sure, I read the post, but it just seemed to me that you were focussed on the ATGATT.


Thread: ATGATT. Why? It doesn't affect anyone else? (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/121345-ATGATT.-Why-It-doesn-t-affect-anyone-else/page2)

[Nasty]

Sorry, but I got that from the heading. Sure, I read the post, but it just seemed to me that you were focussed on the ATGATT.


Thread: ATGATT. Why? It doesn't affect anyone else? (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/121345-ATGATT.-Why-It-doesn-t-affect-anyone-else/page2)

It's not like you would have thought of reading the title and wondering why the question was posed.

[marty]

Maybe I'm just in a difficult mood. I did ride my scooter down to the servo carrying a 5l petrol container (Empty down-full back. Did you know it costs $18 to fill a C50 scooter and 5l petrol can? Bloody hell!) just before just to celebrate this thread though. In my shorts and t-shirt. I did have my gumboots and full face helmet on though :) Then I did the lawns without my ear defenders on!

[Edbear]

It's not like you would have thought of reading the title and wondering why the question was posed.

Mebbe he needs to take the Pitts up to clear his head...

[Hitcher]

One sincerely hopes that if one is ever unfortunate to have (another) off, that any motorcyclists who stop to offer assistance don't sneer and pontificate about one's choices of riding apparel. Or that one may be one of "them" who gives the rest of "us" a bad name.

Based on past experiences, that is unlikely to happen. One once went down on the north end of the Rangitikei River Bridge at Bulls on Boxing Day, breaking one's collarbone in the process. The biggest risk to one's immediate well-being was being run over by lane-splitting bikers hell-bent on getting Wanganui, none of whom stopped to offer assistance.

There is also a belief that wearing ATGATT prevents accidents and minimises injuries. Any truth in such a belief can only be speculative, rather than scientific.

There are glass houses and people who throw stones. The two are incompatible.

[Nasty]

There is also a belief that wearing ATGATT prevents accidents and minimises injuries. Any truth in such a belief can only be speculative, rather than scientific.


Well some of us know that just isn't so! The gear serves a purpose - but it doesn't always save a life.

[marty]

Mebbe he needs to take the Pitts up to clear his head...

I would, but it crashed and is a write off.

Have to slum it in a Nangchang and this >>>>
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj274/toolowtoofast/clc.jpg

now :(

[Edbear]

I would, but it crashed and is a write off.

Have to slum it in a Nangchang now :(

If that's the Nangchang I've seen, and spoken to (one of) the owners about, that's one cool plane! Okay the Pitts would literally fly rings around it but I'd love to go up in it one day! Rather that than the Pitts, actually...

[Subike]

Prevention and education
this ATGATT debate is endless,
is there and end to this problem?
how can we help, if at all?
In a way, that riders would accept as not being in contradtction to their right to personal choice?
What if?
Instead of discussing the pros and cons of all the aspects of rider saftey, skill, cost factors, statistics and injury prevention..
Could we be more pro active and collectivly produce a quality teaching aid for All riders that the ACC could fund it, as they have money set aside for specifically this , Goverment support and the TSL could distribute the aid using their current poatal system and ownership data base.
A simple interactive DVD
Issued to new riders upon applying for their learners
Posted to licenced riders with thier registration renewal forms.
DVD?
So ATGATT will it....
Reduce the accedent rate? or just the extent of the injury incurred?
There are thousands of hours of vidios and discusions on the web showing...
how to ride a bike safley and dangerously, footage of dangerous riding, and safe riding i.
how to reconise road dangers , such as pea shingle, tar snakes, and footage of what damage they can cause.
how to avoid accidents and what dose happen, not what might happen, footage of simple error accedents?
what protective gear is recomended to wear
Vidio footage of acual accedents showing injury caused by not wearing any saftey gear, some saftey gear, full saftey gear..
how to load you bike for touring, what over loading, unbalanced loads, can do on the road.
how to do basic maintenance , and show how a deflated tyre or loose chain can cause injury
who to contact for advanced training in NZ
where and how to make a claim when and if an incident happens.

I dont think it takes much to inmagine how this could be put togeather, if I, an uneducated can conceive the idea.

It would be designed as a tool for education for all, including those who have little understanding of the art of "riding to survive"
especially those who make the rules.

If such a DVD was to come from a Govt source, it would most likley be ignored and would be one sided.
If it was produced and presented as coming from fellow riders,
Then I am sure that it would reach a high percentage of riders who may never otherwise think about these things.
The information can be ignored or taken up, at the choice of the viewer.
It could be made as a serries inside the DVD, which could be used by television as a mini serries.
It could be used by so many as an education tool.

AND


If it came from us, was accepted, used, distibuted.
THEN WE ARE MAKING A DIFFERENCE.

instead of just talking about ATGATT,
advocate via education ATGATT

[Edbear]

One sincerely hopes that if one is ever unfortunate to have (another) off, that any motorcyclists who stop to offer assistance don't sneer and pontificate about one's choices of riding apparel. Or that one may be one of "them" who gives the rest of "us" a bad name.

Based on past experiences, that is unlikely to happen. One once went down on the north end of the Rangitikei River Bridge at Bulls on Boxing Day, breaking one's collarbone in the process. The biggest risk to one's immediate well-being was being run over by lane-splitting bikers hell-bent on getting Wanganui, none of whom stopped to offer assistance.

There is also a belief that wearing ATGATT prevents accidents and minimises injuries. Any truth in such a belief can only be speculative, rather than scientific.

There are glass houses and people who throw stones. The two are incompatible.


Well some of us know that just isn't so! The gear serves a purpose - but it doesn't always save a life.

No-one would suggest that the gear prevents accidents, but it sure can reduce the severity of injuries, and can indeed prevent some injuries. No-one has suggested the OP or anyone else has or would in fact berate the accident victim either. This whole thread is to emphasise that those who claim the right to go without the gear because only they are affected are plainly wrong. Others are always affected and this knowledge should be a factor in the decisions we make.

[yungatart]

One sincerely hopes that if one is ever unfortunate to have (another) off, that any motorcyclists who stop to offer assistance don't sneer and pontificate about one's choices of riding apparel. Or that one may be one of "them" who gives the rest of "us" a bad name.

Based on past experiences, that is unlikely to happen. One once went down on the north end of the Rangitikei River Bridge at Bulls on Boxing Day, breaking one's collarbone in the process. The biggest risk to one's immediate well-being was being run over by lane-splitting bikers hell-bent on getting Wanganui, none of whom stopped to offer assistance.

There is also a belief that wearing ATGATT prevents accidents and minimises injuries. Any truth in such a belief can only be speculative, rather than scientific.

There are glass houses and people who throw stones. The two are incompatible.

I don't believe that ATGATT prevents injuries, but it can certainly minimise them. I myself, have come off and sustained injuries whilst wearing ATG...luckily only broken bones. I would have lost shit loads of skin from sliding down the road without the gear though and been considerably worse off.

Whilst attending the victim yesterday, I was the 'consumate professional'. He was treated with respect and dignity by myself and others at all times.

[MSTRS]

And still there seems to be a mood amongst some here that this is a thread extolling the virtues of ATGATT...and the evils of not wearing etc.
Yes, to an extent, it is about wearing the gear.
But for the hard of hearing, here it is again...
"Wear what you like, but don't justify your (poor) gear decision by claiming no-one else is hurt by it"

[caseye]

It has never entered my head to either ask who was at fault or to pontificate as to the pros and cons of having and or using safety equippment whilst helping to make sure people are safely and humanely kept alive or pass away with someone holding them.
you won't get me with the glass houses one either Hitcher, no one is suggesting that the simple application of ATGATT to a stupid knuckle dragging retard is going to stop them dying when they go head on into a car full of once happy family members.
The KDR's dont give a shit! thats what YT is saying.
Also the issue of those who it affects directly when these KDR's do go out and write themselves and others off.
It does affect others if you go to fast and crash. Fact.
ATGATT does save victims and crashee's much more pain and suffering, if it's in use.Fact.
Attitude is a major problem.Fact.
Question, what can we do to stop it becoming a legislative issue? Should we even try or should we all go back to being autonomus irresponsible individuals.
Another question.How many bikers(we are in KB's forums here arn't we?) have even the basest knowledge of first aid and are able ready and willing to use it ?
Another. How many motorcycle riders carry a first aid kit?
Or how many of us carry a small tool kit and a tyre repair outfit?
Funny ,I bet most said yes they do, to the tools and the tyre stuff!
I raised the matter of what if anything the rest of us can do about it before it becomes such a problem that the govt simply legislates us all into having to buy horrendously expensive safety equipment.
I've asked this same question before.
I've suggested that if ATGATT is proved not to have happened then we/ACC should not pay! Why the hell should we pay for someone else's incompetance and total disregard for everyone else around them?
I've had it all thrown back at me too, "I'll ride wearing what I want and no one is going to tell me different! It's my personal choice to ride wearing what I want"
Fine, take that one step further, sir whilsts crashing your car head on intothe bike were you wearing your seat belt? No, so your broken back is not the domain of ACC either!
Sir, were you wearing all your available protective gear at the time of your unfortunate mishap(coming off on a straight bit of Large chip seal road)?
If for one moment the average motorist thought that not doing all they can will reflect back on them and theirs then maybe, just maybe ,they would think. Never mind about twice. Once would be enough! not to gom out without taking all appropriate mesures.
Personal responsibility is what I'm on about.You dont do it, you dont get it=ACC.

Consider as yungatart has who else it does affect?
It's never just the rider/driver.
There are all the other people involved in accident attendance.
In traffic management.
In hospital.
The cost to our emergency and medical services could be as much as halved simply by educating people to use the appropriate gear.in conjubction with riding/driving appropriately for the conditions.
We've proved that by reducing speeds in some areas there have been less accidents.I'm not a speed freak, either way.But it's a fact, black spot, camera, accidents stop almost completely.If only the Traffic nazi's could be trusted to keep putting the cameras in the right places.
Is that a bad outcome?

[Maha]

Sorry, but I got that from the heading. Sure, I read the post, but it just seemed to me that you were focussed on the ATGATT.
Thread: ATGATT. Why? It doesn't affect anyone else? (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/121345-ATGATT.-Why-It-doesn-t-affect-anyone-else/page2)

I got the meaning of the thread Marty from reading and understanding the first post.

I started a thread a while ago called 'Troblog'...it was about a dolphin like shaped paddock on the side of a hill.
What the hell is a Troblog? I have no idea, was never question about it, but the first post was what the thread was all about.
Same in this case.
This line '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! ...sums up the first post

[James Deuce]

I haven't posted in ages, but this thread got my dander up.

I am am one of "them" giving bikers a bad name with people who can make life difficult for bikers. I cost and am costing ACC thousands. I fit the profile of a mid-life idiot despite riding for years prior to being regarded as middle aged - Powerful bike, etc, etc, etc.

I made life very difficult for dozens of people on the day of my accident and the weeks following. I fail to see how that is any different to the premise of the OP.

I happened to be wearing ATG on the day of the accident because I was cautiously getting to know my new bike. I was knocked off my bike by a sheep at about 75 km/h and sustained injuries that are almost a carbon copy of those sustained by vinyl jacket man. It is pointless conjecture to assume that my gear saved my life. My gear helped break my ribs and caused bone deep abrasions on my elbow, knee and hand. The elbow armour was trapped between my body and the ground on impact and the 10 fractured ribs show a pattern that matches the shape of the elbow armour. The knee armour gouged the crap out of knee when the bike landed on it at a strange angle.

The only piece of gear I can point at and say it prevented a more serious injury is my right boot. My right ankle was so over-extended it pulled the front tendon off the bone and ruptured and tore the anterior ligaments running from ankle to foot. Without the boot's exo-skeleton my right ankle would have been hopelessly mangled, because the sheep hit the front wheel and highsided me over the left of the bike and in front of it. The bike then landed on my right leg which swelled to twice its normal size over 24 hours from knee to toes.

In this instance I was wearing ATG and STILL "hurt" other people.

The issue isn't simply confined to not wearing ATG. To point at other's selfish actions and try to use them as an example of what not to do due being hurt is a little creepy. IMO. I'm no different to vinyl jacket man. I wasn't skilled enough or quick enough to react and cost myself a new bike, found out that broken ribs and internal injuries are something that I wouldn't wish on anyone, and learned the cost of letting my ambition exceed my talent. Worst of all I complicated a Copper's life, made a trust spend money on a Helicopter flight that they'll have to go fund raise to pay for, wasted 3 hours of an ambulance crew's day, and prevented some helpful members of the public from completing a house move in the middle of nowhere. I scared my family too.

All of which makes me one of "them".

[Owl]

Good to hear from you Jim and I hope you're feeling a little better! Your foot injury sounds quite nasty.:shit:

[Maha]

I haven't posted in ages, but this thread got my dander up.

I am am one of "them" giving bikers a bad name with people who can make life difficult for bikers. I cost and am costing ACC thousands. I fit the profile of a mid-life idiot despite riding for years prior to being regarded as middle aged - Powerful bike, etc, etc, etc.

I made life very difficult for dozens of people on the day of my accident and the weeks following. I fail to see how that is any different to the premise of the OP.

I happened to be wearing ATG on the day of the accident because I was cautiously getting to know my new bike. I was knocked off my bike by a sheep at about 75 km/h and sustained injuries that are almost a carbon copy of those sustained by vinyl jacket man. It is pointless conjecture to assume that my gear saved my life. My gear helped break my ribs and caused bone deep abrasions on my elbow, knee and hand. The elbow armour was trapped between my body and the ground on impact and the 10 fractured ribs show a pattern that matches the shape of the elbow armour. The knee armour gouged the crap out of knee when the bike landed on it at a strange angle.

The only piece of gear I can point at and say it prevented a more serious injury is my right boot. My right ankle was so over-extended it pulled the front tendon off the bone and ruptured and tore the anterior ligaments running from ankle to foot. Without the boot's exo-skeleton my right ankle would have been hopelessly mangled, because the sheep hit the front wheel and highsided me over the left of the bike and in front of it. The bike then landed on my right leg which swelled to twice its normal size over 24 hours from knee to toes.

In this instance I was wearing ATG and STILL "hurt" other people.

The issue isn't simply confined to not wearing ATG. To point at other's selfish actions and try to use them as an example of what not to do due being hurt is a little creepy. IMO. I'm no different to vinyl jacket man. I wasn't skilled enough or quick enough to react and cost myself a new bike, found out that broken ribs and internal injuries are something that I wouldn't wish on anyone, and learned the cost of letting my ambition exceed my talent. Worst of all I complicated a Copper's life, made a trust spend money on a Helicopter flight that they'll have to go fund raise to pay for, wasted 3 hours of an ambulance crew's day, and prevented some helpful members of the public from completing a house move in the middle of nowhere. I scared my family too.

All of which makes me one of "them".

All that you have spoken about here Jim, I would think that 99% of us are very very happy that all those things that occured (following the accident) did.
The other scenario is not worth thinking about is it?

[Toaster]

...
I happened to be wearing ATG on the day of the accident because I was cautiously getting to know my new bike. I was knocked off my bike by a sheep at about 75 km/h and sustained injuries that are almost a carbon copy of those sustained by vinyl jacket man....

Damn sheep. I know how you feel. I swerved and missed the creature but ended up highsiding and ending up with several broken ribs, split liver, internal bleeding in my lung and massive bruising and long term pain, not to mention a head injury that has pretty much destroyed so much of my life thereafter.

The cost to ACC and the taxpayer would have been very significant all up. Every crash, non-injury, injury and fatal affects us all one way or another. Time, taxes, levies, emotional impact etc.

[caseye]

James Duece, you are so far from being "one of them" that it's not funny. I dont doubt for an instant that all of the things you have told us about what your gear did is true. I dont for a minute however consider that you took to your bike without first putting on all that useless gear without thought for what it might or might not do for you. This guy didn't, while I sincerely hope he recovers I also hope that if he ever rides again he takes the time to think about himself and his loved ones and does put on any gear that he may have.
You did.
He didn't.
Those people have jobs that mean that when you had an accident they get to come help you out, if I was paying for them to sit in a station and read a book and not have to come out to an accident you may have, I'd happy.
As it is when they got called out to your accident they were responding to an unavoidable accident.
Recently my wife had one of those on her bike.
I am truly grateful to the civilians who helped us both , to the firemen and women who attended, the Police who having attended have since contacted her and told her there would be no charges of any kind and that they were glad she was OK, but to date they've been unable to find the bastards who left a trailer load of car parts in the middle of the road.
She was wearing ATGATT her speed was approx 40Kph, it definitely saved her considerably more pain and suffering than if she had not been wearing it.
Different situations different gear, same principal, it was on to protect in case of.
You'd never consider riding without it all again anyway would you?
Point is you did think ,you most likely have done for a very long time.
Sadly while your gear apparently did more harm than good I'd venture to say that in reality without it you'd be considerably worse off than you are now, therefore if I can keep you on the rational trail of what the gear did! do it would be self evident that it did more good than harm and it proves that as you did, thinking of yourself and others paid off.
This is not a witch hunt for those that dont do ATGATT, it started off as an observation that not thinking of yourself and your loved ones Does impact terribly on many others and that it is a myth that you are your own boss and master and will answer to no one because it's your right as long as it doesnt interfer with others around you.
You've told us that you put on your gear on. From that point on the rest of your story is truely about the help you deservedly got from resuce and emergency service personel who's job it is to make sure you come back alive.
They would much rather piss you off by cutting off your expensive leathers than lose you in the ambo. They would far rather see that you tried to make yourself safe than see the truely horrific burns and abrassions received from folk who use no protective gear at all.
They would come out to your accident everytime knowing that you cared enough for yourself and your loved ones to use the gear.
Doesnt that mean something?
No James Deuce your not "one of them" you are someone whio did all they could be expected to do, who was simply shagged by a bloody great sheep in the middle of a damnd roadway.
Sue the frigging council who allowed the cocky to let hs sheep run rampant.

[Bikemad]

ok i gotta ask................whats atgatt??????????
yeah i know its safety gear........

[steve_t]

ok i gotta ask................whats atgatt??????????
yeah i know its safety gear........

All The Gear All The Time ;)

[caseye]

ok i gotta ask................whats atgatt??????????
yeah i know its safety gear........

LOL BLOODY NORF SHORIANS , hey Col. ATGATT = all the gear all the time, you gioing to HB country end of the month?

[Bikemad]

ahhhh .........cheers steve

[Bikemad]

LOL BLOODY NORF SHORIANS , hey Col. ATGATT = all the gear all the time, you gioing to HB country end of the month?
Howdy mark.............yep.....takin ute wit MK3 onboard

[SPman]

I had a white knuckle moment this arvo, when a Rav4 (coming towards me) decided not to run a Pukeko down ... and run ME off the road instead ....

I stayed upright ... and continued when my heartbeat got below 120 beats per min.

My headlight was on FULL ... what goes on in their heads ????Perhaps, the fact your headlight was on FULL, was the problem! The next f**ker that rides towards me with his headlight on FULL, will get a front wheel full of Hiace van and roobar! (if I'm in the van!)
I have twice been near blinded by bikes with their headlights on full beam during the day in the last month alone - next time, I might be blinded to the extent of running in to them!

[Owl]

James Duece, you are so far from being "one of them" that it's not funny.
No Hitcher your not "one of them" you are someone whio did all they could be expected to do, who was simply shagged by a bloody great sheep in the middle of a damnd roadway.

Are you on drugs?:confused:

[MotoKuzzi]

His inability to ride seems to be the main problem. ( ref OP )

[MSTRS]

I haven't posted in ages, but this thread got my dander up.



Good to hear from you, Jim. And we hope that the recovery process is going well.

Au contraire to what you are saying on the subject of this thread. No-one is saying that a gearless rider is not deserving of any and all assistance in the event of an off. The gear or lack of makes no difference when it comes to how to deal with the aftermath. Those without appropriate gear certainly are not deserving of sympathy as regards injuries that gear may have prevented...but that's a different subject.

[caseye]

Are you on drugs?:confused:

LOL many thanks, no it was just late and I was a little tired getting confuzzed. Cheers for the heads up.

[Tink]

This has made me think hard "go do a first aid course" I need it for work too... but its not a must for work... this kinda thing is... I came across a young 20 something on a bicycle once no helmet, he had a epileptic fit while cycling, and I could not face the blood, luckily there were people close by that I yelled for ... but this is another big reason... ALL motorcyclists should have their first aid cert! Surely!

[caseye]

Now Kim all KB'ers should know How to wave too but telling em that is another story. Not to be making light of your suggestion, it is a good one, but for almost the same reasoning as some won't/don't wear protective gear some would absolutely refuse to do it.
Someone with first aid knowledge can quite simply save an ordinary persons life if they can apply it without becoming so distressed themsleves that they dont get it right.
These days an ordinary citizen is discouraged to grab a garden hose and put it on a neighbours house fire, in case THEY get hurt.
I hope like hell my neighbour has the balls and the desire to make sure we're all out of the house before he runs away from a perfectly good garden hose.
Anyway, while I've not done a refresher for quite sometime i'm hoping I dont have to practice to many times a year so I'll probably get by with what i do know.
Take care out there and good luck with the Restricted aye mate.

[yungatart]

Nice to hear from you JD. Sorry I got your dander up, not my intention at all.
YOU took the time to put on your gear, I'm sure that your attitude was reasonable, and your attention on what you were doing would likely have been right up there too.
Mr Vinyl Jacket man did none of those things, he's not the only one, either.
Peoples rights these days outweigh their responsibilities by miles. We even bring up our kids and educate them in this belief. Hell, we even legislate for it!
My point was that what you do can/does affect others and a cavalier attitude can affect people even more.

[FJRider]

Perhaps, the fact your headlight was on FULL, was the problem! The next f**ker that rides towards me with his headlight on FULL, will get a front wheel full of Hiace van and roobar! (if I'm in the van!)
I have twice been near blinded by bikes with their headlights on full beam during the day in the last month alone - next time, I might be blinded to the extent of running in to them!

Considering it was pissing down with rain at the time ... and he saw the pukeko ... cant have been that "blinded"

[Bikemad]

This has made me think hard "go do a first aid course" ALL motorcyclists should have their first aid cert! Surely!

yep good idea RG............and please dont call me shirley

[Jonno.]

This has made me think hard "go do a first aid course" I need it for work too... but its not a must for work... this kinda thing is... I came across a young 20 something on a bicycle once no helmet, he had a epileptic fit while cycling, and I could not face the blood, luckily there were people close by that I yelled for ... but this is another big reason... ALL motorcyclists should have their first aid cert! Surely!

I did a workplace first aid course, best 160 dollars I've ever spent.
Especially if it saves someone's life!

[Tricia1000]

Seeing people out riding without gear, appropriate licence etc as outlined in the first post does indeed upet me. Most of you would know me as a motorcycle instructor. The reason I became an instructor was because i had seen the result of too many m/c crashes where rider or pillion were not wearing appropriate protective gear. I might add at this point that I work in an operating department, puting motorcyclists back together after their crashes. I have seen injuries that would not have occurred if proper gear had been worn.
the worst injury I have ever seen was a 19 year old, who with pillion on back, had been drinking, and decided to ovrtake the car that he was following. He misjudged the gap between the car he was following and the oncoming car. He was thrown forward over the handle bars, de-gloving his scrotum on the way.
when he came to theatre, most of the flesh on his upper thighs was missing, as was his scrotal sac. His testes were "hanging in the breeze". This guy endured a further five years of skin grafts, and will never be able to father children. the pillion died at the scene.
So please don't say that it doesnt affect other people, because IT DOES.
Tricia1000

[RDjase]

yep good idea RG............and please dont call me shirley

Sounds like a line out of Airplane !

Are you doing the Taupo track day next saturday mate?

[James Deuce]

You guys are missing my points completely.

It doesn't matter what gear you wear, any accident you are involved in affects other people.

@ Tricia - I've seen the lower half of a leg de-gloved due to a foot being removed by chain and sprocket. The victim was wearing good boots. For every example where people weren't wearing gear I can find an example where gear made no difference or added injuries that the victim wouldn't have sustained.

I am JUST like vinyl guy, particularly to the people who matter. I'm just another motorcycle accident. ATG (apart from a helmet) isn't important in that respect and most of the general public would hold that there was no difference between me and vinyl jacket dude. The fact that motorcyclists see my gear as better than vinyl jacket guy's is simply splitting hairs for ACC, NZTA, the Police, any other emergency services the and non-motorcycling public.

The whole argument is pointless. Motorcyclists argue that their own freedom of expression is paramount, but are happy to hammer anyone else for expressing a different view or attitude, even going so far as to argue for legal compulsion being a legitimate response.

The antithesis of freedom.

I don't know about you, but the motorcycle is almost the definition of freedom for me, despite getting hurt every single time I fall off.

[Edbear]

You guys are missing my points completely.

It doesn't matter what gear you wear, any accident you are involved in affects other people.

@ Tricia - I've seen the lower half of a leg de-gloved due to a foot being removed by chain and sprocket. The victim was wearing good boots. For every example where people weren't wearing gear I can find an example where gear made no difference or added injuries that the victim wouldn't have sustained.

I am JUST like vinyl guy, particularly to the people who matter. I'm just another motorcycle accident. ATG (apart from a helmet) isn't important in that respect and most of the general public would hold that there was no difference between me and vinyl jacket dude. The fact that motorcyclists see my gear as better than vinyl jacket guy's is simply splitting hairs for ACC, NZTA, the Police, any other emergency services the and non-motorcycling public.

The whole argument is pointless. Motorcyclists argue that their own freedom of expression is paramount, but are happy to hammer anyone else for expressing a different view or attitude, even going so far as to argue for legal compulsion being a legitimate response.

The antithesis of freedom.

I don't know about you, but the motorcycle is almost the definition of freedom for me, despite getting hurt every single time I fall off.

I think I see your problem... :yes:

[James Deuce]

Get fucked Ed.

[FROSTY]

My experience this weekend wasw compared to the OP's post kinda funny. Jorja and I went to Paihia for the weekend on our bikes. staying int he same hotel was a young couple on matching cbr's. They arrived wearing all the flash gear. Next morning off out for the day. Him in shorts n sneakers. Her in a skirt and ladies sandles. on their bikes. I shook my head thinking hmm that'll hurt if sunmmat happens.- But it diddn't and looks like they had fun.

[thealmightytaco]

You guys are missing my points completely.

It doesn't matter what gear you wear, any accident you are involved in affects other people.

@ Tricia - I've seen the lower half of a leg de-gloved due to a foot being removed by chain and sprocket. The victim was wearing good boots. For every example where people weren't wearing gear I can find an example where gear made no difference or added injuries that the victim wouldn't have sustained.

I am JUST like vinyl guy, particularly to the people who matter. I'm just another motorcycle accident. ATG (apart from a helmet) isn't important in that respect and most of the general public would hold that there was no difference between me and vinyl jacket dude. The fact that motorcyclists see my gear as better than vinyl jacket guy's is simply splitting hairs for ACC, NZTA, the Police, any other emergency services the and non-motorcycling public.

The whole argument is pointless. Motorcyclists argue that their own freedom of expression is paramount, but are happy to hammer anyone else for expressing a different view or attitude, even going so far as to argue for legal compulsion being a legitimate response.

The antithesis of freedom.

I don't know about you, but the motorcycle is almost the definition of freedom for me, despite getting hurt every single time I fall off.

That's quite thought provoking, and very reasonable. Similar to the "everyone but me drives too slow or like a maniac" problem.

Indeed none of us want to clean up other people off the floor, regardless of what they were or weren't wearing, but who are we to judge, really. I've got a good friend who wrapped his car around a tree at 50k back when we were learning to drive, but he wrapped the drivers side around it. If he'd worn his seatbelt that day he'd be mush, but he didn't and he got pinged over into the passenger seat instead, completely unscathed. Not that I don't wear my seatbelt, hate not wearing it, but if I got in a slide and saw a tree coming at my door I might think about unclicking it.

Education and personal experience will guide us, but all in all we have to sort our own shit out and leave everyone else to sort theirs, no matter how differently they look at it to us.

Queue religious analogy and extreme SS v3.02 flame war....

[MSTRS]

You guys are missing my points completely.

It doesn't matter what gear you wear, any accident you are involved in affects other people.


Not missing that point...
And you are absolutely right. Gear or not, someone else is likely to be affected by one's crashes. And since some injury is almost guaranteed in a crash, why do we gear up, then?
It is, and should remain, our choice. But if we choose not to gear up, we should expect that potential injuries will be greater, which in turn has a greater effect on others. Too many don't appear to realise this...hence the attitude the first post rails against.

[Edbear]

Get fucked Ed.

Sorry, couldn't resist... :innocent:


Not missing that point...
And you are absolutely right. Gear or not, someone else is likely to be affected by one's crashes. And since some injury is almost guaranteed in a crash, why do we gear up, then?
It is, and should remain, our choice. But if we choose not to gear up, we should expect that potential injuries will be greater, which in turn has a greater effect on others. Too many don't appear to realise this...hence the attitude the first post rails against.

I agree, and no offence intended to JD, I can resist anything but temptation. :sunny: The OP was simply making the point that some say their decision whether or not to wear appropriate gear only affects them when it is plainly obvious that it does affect others. As another poster said, too, JD was wearing the gear again by his own choice, yet still suffered terribly from the accident. I'm sure, JD that you will continue to wear riding gear, albeit maybe a different type?

It was your original post, JD, that had me decide that maybe the standard armour in my gear was the best and not to get hard armour in addition. Your original post about your accident simply reminded me that we do our best to minimize risk and after that we hope for the best. Just because we wear armour, we should not be complacent, falling off hurts!

[Berries]

It might be a bit simplistic, but shouldn't the aim be to try and not crash ? If you crash at speed, whatever you are wearing, you are going to impact on other people. The problem with vinyl jacket man was that he rode like a dick and crashed. Granted, if he had had all the gear on then maybe the effects on bystanders may not have been as traumatic, and he might have a got a bit more sympathy from people on here. To the powers that be it is just another bike crash and that is what they will consider when looking at future legislation. They aren't going to accept the numbers and think they'll solve things by introducing clothing standards or whatever. The numbers have to come down and that will be the focus, by whatever means they come up with, most of which I am sure we won't like.

You would think ACC would be a bit more concerned abut injury severity and clothing standards as it is they who pay out. ACC have been done to death on here though so I'll leave that one well alone.

[Chrislost]

I will have to totally agrre with this
If you own a bike you own a min amount of gear.
Compulsery to wear no different to a track day. BASIC SAFETY

Are you, like serious?
Like actually serious?

Full leathers, a back protector, boots, gloves, for me? How about the bike
All just so im safe?
For the cost of a good set of gear i could get tyre warmers and stands.

At least with them when i hit the brakes in a hurry half way to the dairy (about 250m up the road) i would stoppie rather than fall off.

[James Deuce]

Sorry, couldn't resist... :innocent:


You'll keep.

In terms of gear, I'm not following you. I had good fitting good quality 2 piece Quasimoto leathers, back protector, top shelf helmet, boots, and gloves. $3000 worth of gear. I'll be wearing the same if or when I get a bike again.

[R6_kid]

I will have to totally agrre with this
If you own a bike you own a min amount of gear.
Compulsery to wear no different to a track day. BASIC SAFETY

Perhaps then we should all go for WOF checks before we ride then? After all the fact that my bike has no WOF means that it is actually unsafe to be on the road, despite being in a much better condition than it was in 6mths ago when it last got a WOF.

[Edbear]

You'll keep.

In terms of gear, I'm not following you. I had good fitting good quality 2 piece Quasimoto leathers, back protector, top shelf helmet, boots, and gloves. $3000 worth of gear. I'll be wearing the same if or when I get a bike again.

I guess it's just that I have the gear with the CP armour but I've never taken it for granted. The fact that it was the solid armour that caused your injuries due to it not giving made me wonder if the "soft" armour in my gear was the better compromise.

We never know, I guess until we do come off what the outcome will be, we can only do our best to minimise the risk, which is why I'll never ride sans ATTGATT.

Seatbelts and air-bags also carry their own risks but the balance of it is that most times, the injuries from the safety gear are minor by comparison with the injuries from not having it.

[jono035]

You guys are missing my points completely.

It doesn't matter what gear you wear, any accident you are involved in affects other people.

@ Tricia - I've seen the lower half of a leg de-gloved due to a foot being removed by chain and sprocket. The victim was wearing good boots. For every example where people weren't wearing gear I can find an example where gear made no difference or added injuries that the victim wouldn't have sustained.

I am JUST like vinyl guy, particularly to the people who matter. I'm just another motorcycle accident. ATG (apart from a helmet) isn't important in that respect and most of the general public would hold that there was no difference between me and vinyl jacket dude. The fact that motorcyclists see my gear as better than vinyl jacket guy's is simply splitting hairs for ACC, NZTA, the Police, any other emergency services the and non-motorcycling public.

The whole argument is pointless. Motorcyclists argue that their own freedom of expression is paramount, but are happy to hammer anyone else for expressing a different view or attitude, even going so far as to argue for legal compulsion being a legitimate response.

The antithesis of freedom.

I don't know about you, but the motorcycle is almost the definition of freedom for me, despite getting hurt every single time I fall off.

I understood your points, but I have never assumed that protective gear is infallible or that it will never make matters worse. I do strongly believe that on the balance, however, it is much more likely to have helped than to have hurt.

There is more than a small element of sampling bias that is likely to appear in this consideration given that it is very hard to characterise injuries that didn't happen (the entire point of the gear itself).

[Owl]

ATTGATT

Bloody sad day I reckon when we start to spell acronyms wrong:pinch:

[Virago]

Bloody sad day I reckon when we start to spell acronyms wrong:pinch:

The BDOTGNZA will accept a formal complaint...

[Edbear]

Bloody sad day I reckon when we start to spell acronyms wrong:pinch:

Where's the smiley for "I surrender!" :doh:

[Maha]

Where's the smiley for "I surrender!" :doh:

Come on Ed.....ATTGATT = All The Tight Gear All The Time.

[chrispy121]

I agree all riders should wear proper gear while riding
in Australia they pay less ACC if you do not have proper gear because you have contributed to the accident.

It is relly funny to see some idiot wearing jandals and shorts riding a bike along the road thinking he is cool.
they normally wave at me thinkng they are now part of the biking club.
Dont wave backto these people they should not be on a bike nor should they be encouraged to ride

just my 2 cent worth

[AD345]

My riding around in naught but a pair of Y-fronts and a big grin does not affect anyone (except on the grounds of good taste)

My crashing in full race gear and sustaining multiple serious injuries does indeed affect a large number of people.

Thats life in the big city

[Princesszxr]

im not sure im on the right track but the amount of ppl i see riding round town in helemts, short and jandals (here in palmy itlmost the norm) it ust make me shake my head and think men so may accients happen so close to home and could be avoided and the damage could be avoided with a jacket and pants. at first i was worried about ppl who ride round like tha but now it just makes me shake my head like oh well you'll learn. dunno just doesnt seem worth not wearing all the gear no mattter how far you go. buthtis is just my opinion.

[Edbear]

Come on Ed.....ATTGATT = All The Tight Gear All The Time.

Of course! If anyone should have got that, it should have been me... :innocent:

[marty]

My experience this weekend wasw compared to the OP's post kinda funny. Jorja and I went to Paihia for the weekend on our bikes. staying int he same hotel was a young couple on matching cbr's. They arrived wearing all the flash gear. Next morning off out for the day. Him in shorts n sneakers. Her in a skirt and ladies sandles. on their bikes. I shook my head thinking hmm that'll hurt if sunmmat happens.- But it diddn't and looks like they had fun.

did you get an upskirt flash?

[mulletman]

Perhaps, the fact your headlight was on FULL, was the problem! The next f**ker that rides towards me with his headlight on FULL, will get a front wheel full of Hiace van and roobar! (if I'm in the van!)
I have twice been near blinded by bikes with their headlights on full beam during the day in the last month alone - next time, I might be blinded to the extent of running in to them!
Mate i gotta agree about the FULL Beam thing, it def makes it hard judging how far away they are wether behind or oncomming, i had a twat follow me back from the Methven street races with Full Beam, farkin blinding alright pissed me right off, then tried to overtake me on my left!!

[Jonno.]

I agree all riders should wear proper gear while riding
in Australia they pay less ACC if you do not have proper gear because you have contributed to the accident.

So do you think they should pay you less then if you were driving a car?

[LBD]

Affect others...to bloody right it does...I just posted a lecture to a young lass being told of by a copper for the same thing....As a dad of a beautiful bike riding daughter...who I introduced to riding...If she was to be perminantly marred as a result of an accident ....her mother and I would be devistated....and so much more so if it could have been prevented by wearing appropriate gear

[MSTRS]

So do you think they should pay you less then if you were driving a car?

We've had this discussion in one of the ACC threads. Whilst it is a valid point (if you don't take reasonable steps to protect yourself, why should you enjoy the full whack of support?) - we also accept that it isn't likely to happen here.
One interesting point that I don't recall seeing...does the attitude that goes with not gearing up, spill over into attitude towards riding?

[Edbear]

We've had this discussion in one of the ACC threads. Whilst it is a valid point (if you don't take reasonable steps to protect yourself, why should you enjoy the full whack of support?) - we also accept that it isn't likely to happen here.
One interesting point that I don't recall seeing...does the attitude that goes with not gearing up, spill over into attitude towards riding?

Interesting question. Probably age related to a large degree.

[wickle]

Just to update you about the NOBB who's off started this thread, I was told today that on Sayurday nite after being patched up at hospital "he walked out" not discharged or anything like that they whated him to stay in over nite, just shows "somepeople can't be helped"

[MSTRS]

Gah!:thud:
And if, medically, something in his condition turns bad...he will still get covered.

[yungatart]

He was pretty determined to walk home from the accident site, I spent the whole time telling him to stay where he was....

[RDjase]

He was pretty determined to walk home from the accident site, I spent the whole time telling him to stay where he was....

he kept trying to get up..................till it hurt to much, and not knowing what day it was and where napier was may have hindered his chances of"Walking Home"

We should have left the dick there and gone to the classic club as we had planed !

[yungatart]

Ah well, you do what you can, eh?
Like my ma used to say,"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"

[caseye]

Ah ,Go on with ya RDJase, you guys could no more walk past a wounded sparrow than leave someone lying in the gutter after an off.
Gear no gear, that wouldn't ever come into it.
But, the question this OP's first post posed about attitude now becomes even more relavant.
Attitude, can it be changed, should we even bother having the discussion?

[RDjase]

Ah well, you do what you can, eh?
Like my ma used to say,"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"

Maybe he wanted out from the hospital before they sucked blood and checked for alcohol(couldnt smell any on him) and drugs

[Dooly]

Who was the guy?

He must of been behind me as I left with Dieseldick and you guys we'rent quite out of the pub then.
Was he one of the guys in the Tiko?

[RDjase]

Ah ,Go on with ya RDJase, you guys could no more walk past a wounded sparrow than leave someone lying in the gutter after an off.
Gear no gear, that wouldn't ever come into it.
But, the question this OP's first post posed about attitude now becomes even more relavant.
Attitude, can it be changed, should we even bother having the discussion?


Super Vinyl Jacket Guy has know idea how famous he is

[RDjase]

Who was the guy?

He must of been behind me as I left with Dieseldick and you guys we'rent quite out of the pub then.
Was he one of the guys in the Tiko?

no , he came from ypawa end, Dark green/black? ZX6r

[yungatart]

Maybe he wanted out from the hospital before they sucked blood and checked for alcohol(couldnt smell any on him) and drugs

According to yesterdays paper, he was unsuccessful in that.


Who was the guy?

He must of been behind me as I left with Dieseldick and you guys we'rent quite out of the pub then.
Was he one of the guys in the Tiko?

He was coming from Waipawa, but lives in Napier. He's a real clever dude, and an amzingly fast rider...pity he couldn't corner as well as he can go in a straight line....

[Dooly]

...pity he couldn't corner as well as he can go in a straight line....

Yeah, a lot of that going around eh..........:msn-wink::lol:

[RDjase]

Yeah, a lot of that going around eh..........:msn-wink::lol:

no shortage of point and squirt riders about, when you add alcohol and egos it makes it worse

[ynot slow]

real clever dude, and an amzingly fast rider...pity he couldn't corner as well as he can go in a straight line....

Sounds like me too,love coming round a corner and a bloody tractor on both sides(well hugging my lane and most of centre lane)just as well I was doing 55km as can't corner but real fast on straights (45km left hander)on top of the twisty bits of sh50,not much friggin room between bank and fred dagg when he has more room his side.So can understand your thoughts re ATGATT,if I had binned although very low speed,who ever turned up would still have the effects of trauma of being at the scene,imaterial if non injury or death,the sickening feeling you feel at an accident scene effects all at the time.

Last year while outside we heard a bang and those around me said fark crash,they headed off to look and help as sounded close,sure enough the accident was 150mts from home,my thoughts were I'm not going.Wife comes back and said it was nasty,I said how bad was the biker,she said died at scene,and then she asked how did I know it was a bike,and I said you could here the screech of tyres/brakes and the impact,but also I heard the tell tale sound of a bike sliding.The guy had good helmet,jacket,gloves etc,but she still was shaken after,she felt his pulse stop,and she has worked in the funeral industry so aint scared of dead people,but as Janet said in her post we all are effected whether proper gear is worn or not,any accident leaves those on the scene effected gear or no gear.

[hellokitty]

im not sure im on the right track but the amount of ppl i see riding round town in helemts, short and jandals (here in palmy itlmost the norm) it ust make me shake my head and think men so may accients happen so close to home and could be avoided and the damage could be avoided with a jacket and pants. at first i was worried about ppl who ride round like tha but now it just makes me shake my head like oh well you'll learn. dunno just doesnt seem worth not wearing all the gear no mattter how far you go. buthtis is just my opinion.

I know how you feel............. imagine my anger when I did my basic handlers cert to get my learners, only to have the instructor sneer at my jacket - my leather armoured alpine stars jacket and my nice helmet - telling me I had no need for such flash gear - I replied that I had an ex-boyfriend who worked in a Honda shop - got it all discounted and did that matter?? Surely you go to your basic handlers test dressed to ride.
This same woman suggested I take my glasses off so the rain wouldn't go on them - the glasses I wear every day as stipulated on my license.

I certainly wouldn't be taking any lessons from her.........

[R-Soul]

What to do about it?


I have said before that new riders should be forced to do a weeks community service in the motorcycle accident ward as a condition for getting their license.

If anything can convince you of your NOT being bulletproof, that will be it.

[DrunkenMistake]

I dont want to stir shit with anybody here,
But ill start off with agreeing that there are far to many idiots riding around in shorts and tshirts,
I havnt had my learners for that long, and unfortanitly my money is stretched which i guess is realy no excuse, But The first things i brought in the way of gear was a damn good helmet, a Rev it armoured textil jacket and a pair of A star leather Gloves, then after about a week due to the amount of bloody rain in Dunedin at the time I brought myself some waterproof boots, Ill be honest im still riding in Jeans, but after ready things thread and doing a little material look up I found that average jeans only take a mear 4.5 pounds of force to tear, to begin with I wasnt too concerned becouse Its only been comuniting around town and a few in city rides, my major problem is, is that most riding pants are either to long or are to small, ill be honest im just a short fat c**t haha, But im just curious what are Draggin jeans like for riding ect.

[jono035]

I dont want to stir shit with anybody here,
But ill start off with agreeing that there are far to many idiots riding around in shorts and tshirts,
I havnt had my learners for that long, and unfortanitly my money is stretched which i guess is realy no excuse, But The first things i brought in the way of gear was a damn good helmet, a Rev it armoured textil jacket and a pair of A star leather Gloves, then after about a week due to the amount of bloody rain in Dunedin at the time I brought myself some waterproof boots, Ill be honest im still riding in Jeans, but after ready things thread and doing a little material look up I found that average jeans only take a mear 4.5 pounds of force to tear, to begin with I wasnt too concerned becouse Its only been comuniting around town and a few in city rides, my major problem is, is that most riding pants are either to long or are to small, ill be honest im just a short fat c**t haha, But im just curious what are Draggin jeans like for riding ect.

Hey mate, glad to hear you're getting into it by buying decent gear straight up. I bought a rev'it jacket, pants and gloves when I first started out a year and a bit ago. Had my first off last weekend (at 30km/hr on a patch of gravel), broke my ankle and would have come out a whole lot worse without the gear. The gloves took a hell of a beating, as did one of the knees on my pants. I'd highly recommend pants with armor in the knees, if your bike goes down on its side, there's every chance your leg is going to still be under it, like mine was. I had a bruised and sore knee for a week, but without them it would have been mincemeat.

[caseye]

I dont want to stir shit with anybody here,
But ill start off with agreeing that there are far to many idiots riding around in shorts and tshirts,
I havnt had my learners for that long, and unfortanitly my money is stretched which i guess is realy no excuse, But The first things i brought in the way of gear was a damn good helmet, a Rev it armoured textil jacket and a pair of A star leather Gloves, then after about a week due to the amount of bloody rain in Dunedin at the time I brought myself some waterproof boots, Ill be honest im still riding in Jeans, but after ready things thread and doing a little material look up I found that average jeans only take a mear 4.5 pounds of force to tear, to begin with I wasnt too concerned becouse Its only been comuniting around town and a few in city rides, my major problem is, is that most riding pants are either to long or are to small, ill be honest im just a short fat c**t haha, But im just curious what are Draggin jeans like for riding ect.

Well they work as jeans and they stop some of the abrasion you can expect if you come off. For the price I'd either wait a month or two and save your pennies and get leather or go Cordura.
Jeans Dragin or Rhino are nice and comfortable but seriously they're not up to it in the same way as the Cordura with armour or leather trou.
I have Rhino jeans for commuting etc but since getting my leather TROU (courtesey of Q Moto) I use them for anything except in and around town.

[PrincessBandit]

It's an interesting dilemma. I do still ride wearing normal jeans often, but never without either my leather or cordura jacket, gloves and bike boots. When I crashed last year I was wearing dress jeans, leather jacket (helmet, gloves and boots of course) and my gear certainly did it's job - helmet with road rash, munted gloves, boots with toe ground down several layers (but not right through). I broke my collarbone. Interestingly, despite the seam down my right leg being ripped open on the road I suffered no more than a small graze on my right leg by the knee and a VERY large bruise on my left thigh where the fabric had been shredded open. I thought I'd have suffered worse injuries to my legs but perhaps my legs just didnt' contact with the road as much as my upper torso...
I only wear jeans now on shorter, lower speed rides. Any ride of longer distance or with higher speed is automatically in my leathers now. While I could say "why bother wiggling into them" (they are a pain to squeeze into sometimes) I am just thankful that my injuries weren't worse and I'm not about to go slapping the face of the angel who was watching over me that day!

[Big Dog]

But im just curious what are Draggin jeans like for riding ect.

I wear draggins to commute.

But that is in the firm knowledge that they offer no armour.

I also own leather pants and Cordura pants.
The draggins would not be used for touring. Aside from anything else they get cold and miserable when it rains.

If you already owned cordura and wanted some Draggns I would support that.
If you wanted some draggins and some supplementary armour I would support that if you had a separate plan for weather protection but no serious commuter should be without that.

If your struggling to find a cost effective cordura pant for the elevation challenged try the Mugello Sht Leg.

Available from any good bike shop for under $250 (often a lot less if your an odd size).

[DrunkenMistake]

This is probly going off the topic now, but thoughts on http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-Me-Motors/Motorbikes/Helmets-clothing-footwear/Pants/auction-306699988.htm

[Big Dog]

I'd ask the brand.
Mobig did some looked like that. High seam failure rate. (note: some owners are very happy but a lot of these pants have dodgey crotches and fasteners.)
If the seams are well constructed that looks like a good buy.

[jono035]

I wear draggins to commute.

But that is in the firm knowledge that they offer no armour.

I also own leather pants and Cordura pants.
The draggins would not be used for touring. Aside from anything else they get cold and miserable when it rains.

If you already owned cordura and wanted some Draggns I would support that.
If you wanted some draggins and some supplementary armour I would support that if you had a separate plan for weather protection but no serious commuter should be without that.

If your struggling to find a cost effective cordura pant for the elevation challenged try the Mugello Sht Leg.

Available from any good bike shop for under $250 (often a lot less if your an odd size).

The lack of armor is what put me off draggins. For around town and commuting, I was more worried about impact injuries to joints than scraping along the road. Thinking about what my minor drop would have been like without the knee armor is pretty scary.

I rode plenty of times without the pants on when I was just going short distances, not any more.

[MSTRS]

The lack of armor is what put me off draggins. For around town and commuting, I was more worried about impact injuries to joints than scraping along the road. Thinking about what my minor drop would have been like without the knee armor is pretty scary.

I rode plenty of times without the pants on when I was just going short distances, not any more.

The strange thing is that low speed drops are often harder landing. Unless you hit a pole or kerb or something, it is the sudden deceleration impact that breaks bones. Alternatively, a higher speed drop (and slide) can leave bones intact but skin/flesh shredded.
YT had a very low speed drop some years ago. Spiral fracture of ankle and broken thumb. No skin gone.

[R-Soul]

The strange thing is that low speed drops are often harder landing. Unless you hit a pole or kerb or something, it is the sudden deceleration impact that breaks bones. Alternatively, a higher speed drop (and slide) can leave bones intact but skin/flesh shredded.
YT had a very low speed drop some years ago. Spiral fracture of ankle and broken thumb. No skin gone.

Interesrting. If you are at speed, the relative angle that you hit the ground at is less than if you are going slowly.

[rastuscat]

Interesrting. If you are at speed, the relative angle that you hit the ground at is less than if you are going slowly.



WOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :rockon::rockon::rockon:

So, like, the faster I go, the safer I am?

Say it's true, GO ON, PLEASE !!

[jono035]

The strange thing is that low speed drops are often harder landing. Unless you hit a pole or kerb or something, it is the sudden deceleration impact that breaks bones. Alternatively, a higher speed drop (and slide) can leave bones intact but skin/flesh shredded.
YT had a very low speed drop some years ago. Spiral fracture of ankle and broken thumb. No skin gone.

My injuries: Spiral fracture of the ankle and a badly sprained thumb, no missing skin....

Interesting...

[swbarnett]

WOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :rockon::rockon::rockon:

So, like, the faster I go, the safer I am?

Say it's true, GO ON, PLEASE !!
Where did you get that? What I take from what was said is just that the types of injuries are different. Not that the severity is any less.

[Spearfish]

This works well for inner city riding but it does have some drawbacks and little things to consider.

I don't have enough suspension settings to cope with all the weight.

I don't have to worry about trying to pick the bike up after a bin because I cant pick myself up.

It uses a whole tube of Autosol metal polish just to keep it looking so good.

Coping with biker envy and one finger KB waves can be a little discouraging.

Its really important to turn up for a group run with a full tank and empty bladder.

on the plus side

After an off the low friction resistance means I have a long enough slide to phone 111 for help AND phone my wife I could be late home and not to worry.

The negative part is that it gets as hot as an old car bonnet being towed along Muriwai beach!

The big sword is optional for an alternative use on weekends, BONUS!!

http://www.security-technologynews.com/upload/image_files/articles/images/companies/2532/body-armor.jpg

[MSTRS]

My injuries: Spiral fracture of the ankle and a badly sprained thumb, no missing skin....

Interesting...

Spooky.
I think what happens is that (if you don't get your leg clear) your foot hits the road, and the weight of the bike landing on it with some forward movement, means the toes are dragged backwards, leading to that rotational fracture. The handlebars also hit the road and pivot rapidly on the steering head, which means that if you don't let go in time, one thumb gets pushed rapidly backwards...known as skier's (or gamekeeper's) thumb.

[jono035]

Spooky.
I think what happens is that (if you don't get your leg clear) your foot hits the road, and the weight of the bike landing on it with some forward movement, means the toes are dragged backwards, leading to that rotational fracture. The handlebars also hit the road and pivot rapidly on the steering head, which means that if you don't let go in time, one thumb gets pushed rapidly backwards...known as skier's (or gamekeeper's) thumb.

That wasn't how I had initially figured that it had happened, but now that I think about it, it does sound a bit more likely...

[R-Soul]

WOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :rockon::rockon::rockon:

So, like, the faster I go, the safer I am?

Say it's true, GO ON, PLEASE !!

No - the component of your speed directly downwards (a function of gravity) is still the same, but the sideways component is more.

The iimpact probably feels less heavy at speed because you still have a lot of adrenalin that is keeping you focussed on what you are going to slide into next....

and if you fall dircectly downwards, you only hit the floor. Not the floor, then the signpost, then the kerb, etc...

[Big Dog]

The lack of armor is what put me off draggins. For around town and commuting, I was more worried about impact injuries to joints than scraping along the road. Thinking about what my minor drop would have been like without the knee armor is pretty scary.

I rode plenty of times without the pants on when I was just going short distances, not any more.

And that is why the Draggins. I will wear them without thinking. Left with just the touring pants and leather to choose from a lot of days I would have to go without to be as mobile as I want to be. Better some protection than none.

[DrunkenMistake]

This works well for inner city riding but it does have some drawbacks and little things to consider.

I don't have enough suspension settings to cope with all the weight.

I don't have to worry about trying to pick the bike up after a bin because I cant pick myself up.

It uses a whole tube of Autosol metal polish just to keep it looking so good.

Coping with biker envy and one finger KB waves can be a little discouraging.

Its really important to turn up for a group run with a full tank and empty bladder.

on the plus side

After an off the low friction resistance means I have a long enough slide to phone 111 for help AND phone my wife I could be late home and not to worry.

The negative part is that it gets as hot as an old car bonnet being towed along Muriwai beach!

The big sword is optional for an alternative use on weekends, BONUS!!

http://www.security-technologynews.com/upload/image_files/articles/images/companies/2532/body-armor.jpg

Somehow i dont see the helmet been a legal alternitive but I mean the sword could be useful to discarage some of those cagers from atempting to share your lane :brick:

[carver]

I have said before that new riders should be forced to do a weeks community service in the motorcycle accident ward as a condition for getting their license.

If anything can convince you of your NOT being bulletproof, that will be it.

forced?????

[R-Soul]

forced?????

Believe me, its not something you want to do voluntarily...

[Antonio]

Sorry to hear that some irresponsible citizen which happened to be a biker ruined your day,

this should be a good lesson for him and others.

[Big Dog]

Believe me, its not something you want to do voluntarily...

Does that mean 4x4 owners will have to view an A&E until a mangle pedestrian, cyclist or biker comes int with bull bar imprints?

[DEATH_INC.]

In all the offs I've had, I've never had gear cause me any injuries. I have however had a couple/few where the lack of it didn't save my ass when it would have. I have also had injuries where BETTER gear would have lessened them too.
Look, you guys can make all the stupid excuses you want for not wearing it, but, think HONESTLY about what was said in the first post and who it will affect.
And think about the repercussions of wearing ATGATT, and who that will affect.
It's not rocket science really.

[MSTRS]

It's not rocket science ...

Like seatbelts in cars.

[carver]

Believe me, its not something you want to do voluntarily...

I think we should force more people to do more things

[swbarnett]

think HONESTLY about what was said in the first post and who it will affect.
And think about the repercussions of wearing ATGATT, and who that will affect.
It's not rocket science really.
I have no problem with the concept that good gear will lessen you injuries in an off. I take issue with the ATGATT brigade on three important points as I've stated numerous times before:

1. Where do we stop?

Crashing without gear is dangerous. This is not really in dispute. However, riding is also dangerous if you compare it with driving a car. Should we ban bikes all together? Of course not, this is a bike forum afterall.

This brings me to my second point:

2. Freedom of choice.

Every individual has their own interpretation of what constitutes a dangerous act. Why should my view of dangerous be imposed on you? If we go down that road life will be very boring indeed.

3. Mitigation of risk.

Injuring oneself is not good. Again a point mostly not in dispute. However, how one mitigates the risk of injury is personal. You have two choices (or a combination of both) - you can wear the gear or you can concentrate on your riding skill so that you don't come off in the first place. For my money a naked skilled rider is at less risk of injury than an armour-clad noobie.



And, for the record, I seldom ride without being covered from head to toe in proper gear.

[Spearfish]

If helmets weren't compulsory how many times would we see posts with "had an off today and I forgot my helmet" then go on to say "I was just going up the road a few k so I didn't bother with a skid lid"

You have a choice what kind kind lid you wear :eg full face or a nearly nothing open or a German pecker head but its a helmet.

Considering "freedom" is becoming so expensive with the two extremes of biker risk takers affecting each other more than ever with ACC and law changes maybe its time a min standard of protective gear should be compulsory. In reality any compulsory gear standard probably wouldn't affect the largest group in the middle.

[swbarnett]

maybe its time a min standard of protective gear should be compulsory.
Over my dead body!!!

I'm certain I'm not alone in this. I wear the gear but I object strongly to anything that would enforce it upon me. I see the need for some "must dos" in law where the affect on others is direct. The laws against murder and rape for example. Any law that is designed to save me from myself is unconscionable and has no place in a free society.

[Milts]

Over my dead body!!!

I'm certain I'm not alone in this. I wear the gear but I object strongly to anything that would enforce it upon me. I see the need for some "must dos" in law where the affect on others is direct. The laws against murder and rape for example. Any law that is designed to save me from myself is unconscionable and has no place in a libertarian society.

FYP. There is a difference between a free democratic society, a liberal democracy, and a libertarian society. Don't go thinking they are one and the same.

[swbarnett]

FYP. There is a difference between a free democratic society, a liberal democracy, and a libertarian society. Don't go thinking they are one and the same.
I wrote free and that's what I meant.

I do understand the difference. I used the word free because there's no place for such a law in any of them.

[GOONR]

Over my dead body!!!

I'm certain I'm not alone in this. I wear the gear but I object strongly to anything that would enforce it upon me. I see the need for some "must dos" in law where the affect on others is direct. The laws against murder and rape for example. Any law that is designed to save me from myself is unconscionable and has no place in a free society.

Totally agree with ya there, I wear the gear but I would not want to see it legislated and forced upon us.

[DEATH_INC.]

I have no problem with the concept that good gear will lessen you injuries in an off. I take issue with the ATGATT brigade on three important points as I've stated numerous times before:

1. Where do we stop?

Crashing without gear is dangerous. This is not really in dispute. However, riding is also dangerous if you compare it with driving a car. Should we ban bikes all together? Of course not, this is a bike forum afterall.

This brings me to my second point:

2. Freedom of choice.

Every individual has their own interpretation of what constitutes a dangerous act. Why should my view of dangerous be imposed on you? If we go down that road life will be very boring indeed.

3. Mitigation of risk.

Injuring oneself is not good. Again a point mostly not in dispute. However, how one mitigates the risk of injury is personal. You have two choices (or a combination of both) - you can wear the gear or you can concentrate on your riding skill so that you don't come off in the first place. For my money a naked skilled rider is at less risk of injury than an armour-clad noobie.



And, for the record, I seldom ride without being covered from head to toe in proper gear.
I still think you are missing the original posters point, what about OTHERS?
You can wear nothing (EEK! and I see that you do wear the gear) but what about the poor buggers that have to pick up the mess? Not just the ambo's/police/firey's but your freinds, families and workmates etc. Surely their choice will be that one takes all reasonable precautions to protect oneself? And if people won't get their shit together and sort it out, then the majority (or noisy minority) will make it become law.
And for the record, I'm no bloody saint either, but I've been there when it's all gone bad and do know what it's like.

[swbarnett]

I still think you are missing the original posters point,
The OP's point, I believe, is that they blamed the downed rider for their phycological suffering at having to pick up the pieces. I can sympothise and do get their point. It would affect me deeply if I were to pick up the pieces of such an incident.

However, where we differ is in the word I've highlighted above. Did they really have to stop and help? Were they forced in to it?

NO. It was their choice to stop. It was their choice to bear witness and pick up the pieces, not the downed rider. The OP could have chosen to pass by and leave the rider to their fate.

I'm not suggesting that they should've passed by. I certainly would've done exacty as they did. What I'm asking them and others like them (including those who make picking up the pieces a career) to do is to stop blaming others for their choices. That road only leads to conformity and a world devoid of anyone pushing the boundries. The likes of Edmond Hillary would stay safely at sea level. In short, everything that makes life worth living would be gone.


what about OTHERS?
I grew up indoctrinated in putting others first. Believe me, taking this to the extreme is not a good idea. If my choice doesn't directly affect others in an adverse way then they have no say in that choice.

And as for family, my wife would rather have me ride like a maniac naked as a jay bird and die in the process than sit around at home miserable.



There's a saying that I try to live by:

It's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years.

[Spearfish]

And as for family, my wife would rather have me ride like a maniac naked as a jay bird and die in the process than sit around at home miserable.



There's a saying that I try to live by:

It's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years.

Lets hope one doesn't lead to the other and your pockets are deep enough.
Like I said the two extremes of risk tolerance is affecting each other more than ever.
Personally I'm lower middle in my risk tolerance and wish ACC was an individuals account, crashes were owned by the individuals directly involved and not the whole group then and only then can you say your truly free from interfering either directly or indirectly with every other rider in New Zealand.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you always should.

[davereid]

I still think you are missing the original posters point, what about OTHERS?... what about the poor buggers that have to pick up the mess? Not just the ambo's/police/firey's but your freinds, families and workmates etc. Surely their choice will be that one takes all reasonable precautions to protect oneself? .....

Yes, I have been lobbied for years to get off "Murdercycles". I have mates who refer to me as a temporary New Zealander, who call my helmet a "blood bucket" and insist I should be driving a car. Like them.

The issue is one of where you draw the line.

For Mr. Barnett (and myself) I consider the risks, and then continue to ride.

I know I am at extreme risk, possibly 18-30 times more likely to die on my motorcycle than I would be in a car. I accept that risk.

ATGATT modifies that risk, clearly that influences my decisions, and I often (usually) wear all the gear.

But I am aware that the decision most likely to cause grief for friends and family was the decision to get on a motorcycle.

ATGATT is like bailing a sinking boat with a teaspoon. It makes you and everyone else feel better, but its effect is insignificant compared to the decision to go boating.

[MSTRS]

Once more, a thread has gone in interesting directions...

And once more, the OP's point was not should you or shouldn't you wear ATGATT, or some of it some of the time, or none ever.
No - the OP was pointing out that a lot of people who refuse/don't wear ATGATT, justify their choice by saying 'It doesn't affect anyone else'.
It is patently obvious that is a crock...

In fact, no matter what any of us do and how we do it, it can and does affect someone else. No-one is saying not to do 'dangerous' things. But don't say your choice/s don't affect others...

[Spearfish]

Once more, a thread has gone in interesting directions...


Kind of like an almost normal conversation..almost...

[swbarnett]

No-one is saying not to do 'dangerous' things.
Welll, some are saying "don't ride without the gear". This is, in effect, saying "don't do this dangerous thing because I don't like seeing you when things go wring". And there are others that are saying we should not ride in the first place. My main concern is that the extremists don't get the weight of law.


In fact, no matter what any of us do and how we do it, it can and does affect someone else.

But don't say your choice/s don't affect others...
Yes, my actions affect others. The only way to stop this is not to exist in the first place. The important point is to what degree others are affected and what part the other's own choices increase that affectation. For example, if I choose to climb a mountain and fall off it could be said that my choice to climb has an affect on my rescuers. However, by far the greater influence on whether or not my actions affect my rescuers is their decision to rescue me. My decision leeds to me lying in a pile of gore. My rescuers decision leeds to their phycological exposure to said gore.



We must all take responsibility for our own decisions - no matter how much we feel we don't have a choice. I would be devistated if I were to attend road accidents on a daily basis. If I were an ambulance officer I would feel it was my duty to do so. However, it would've been my decision to put myself in that position. The responsibility for exposing myself to witnessing horrific injuries would be mine, not that of the rider that chose not to wear appropriate gear.

[MSTRS]

We must all take responsibility for our own decisions -

Exactly.
Wear the gear or not...your choice, but if you choose not to, don't make excuses like 'It doesn't affect anyone else'

[Katman]

Yes, my actions affect others. The only way to stop this is not to exist in the first place. The important point is to what degree others are affected and what part the other's own choices increase that affectation. For example, if I choose to climb a mountain and fall off it could be said that my choice to climb has an affect on my rescuers. However, by far the greater influence on whether or not my actions affect my rescuers is their decision to rescue me. My decision leeds to me lying in a pile of gore. My rescuers decision leeds to their phycological exposure to said gore.


What about when your actions influence TPTB to further restrict the freedom of others?

[PrincessBandit]

However, where we differ is in the word I've highlighted above. Did they really have to stop and help? Were they forced in to it?

NO. It was their choice to stop. It was their choice to bear witness and pick up the pieces, not the downed rider. The OP could have chosen to pass by and leave the rider to their fate.

I'm not suggesting that they should've passed by. I certainly would've done exacty as they did. What I'm asking them and others like them (including those who make picking up the pieces a career) to do is to stop blaming others for their choices.


And as for family, my wife would rather have me ride like a maniac naked as a jay bird and die in the process than sit around at home miserable.



I usually don't disagree with too much of what you say, but tbh, what you've said there sounds pretty mean spirited to me

And all I can say to that is I sure hope you never call upon her need to test that statement you've so boldly made

[Katman]

And as for family, my wife would rather have me ride like a maniac naked as a jay bird and die in the process than sit around at home miserable.


That's probably because she doesn't like you very much.

[davereid]

What about when your actions influence TPTB to further restrict the freedom of others?

TPTB should be resisted at all times...


“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.” P.-J. Proudhon

[yungatart]

The OP's point, I believe, is that they blamed the downed rider for their phycological suffering at having to pick up the pieces. I can sympothise and do get their point. It would affect me deeply if I were to pick up the pieces of such an incident.

However, where we differ is in the word I've highlighted above. Did they really have to stop and help? Were they forced in to it?


Yes, I did have to stop!
As a nurse, I take the Hippocratic Oath very seriously, and was honour bound to stop.
I did not suffer psychological harm as a result of doing so, nor did it affect me deeply, but I was pissed off at the selfishness of the rider's actions.

With respect, you missed my point completely.

[jono035]

Yes, I did have to stop!
As a nurse, I take the Hippocratic Oath very seriously, and was honour bound to stop.
I did not suffer psychological harm as a result of doing so, nor did it affect me deeply, but I was pissed off at the selfishness of the rider's actions.

With respect, you missed my point completely.

There seems to have been a lot of that going around in this thread, so far...

[swbarnett]

Yes, I did have to stop!
I beg to differ. It was your choice. Irrespective of the fact that the choice was made when you chose to become a nurse. It is also a choice you make on a daily basis to not go against the oath you took.


As a nurse, I take the Hippocratic Oath very seriously, and was honour bound to stop.
I agree completely. However, your choice to take the Hippocratic Oath in the first place was what led to you stopping. Not the rider's decision to ride without gear.


I did not suffer psychological harm as a result of doing so, nor did it affect me deeply,
Glad to hear it. I have great respect for those who can do this for a career and stay sane.


but I was pissed off at the selfishness of the rider's actions.

With respect, you missed my point completely.
Actually, you've just stated what I said in a different way. To call them selfish is to lay the blame for you stopping on them.

To call a rider selfish for not wearing the gear is to call ALL motorcyclists selfish for riding in the first place. Nobody has the right to control how anyone else lives their life when the only direct concequences are to themselves.

[swbarnett]

Exactly.
Wear the gear or not...your choice, but if you choose not to, don't make excuses like 'It doesn't affect anyone else'
I don't. If my actions have a direct affect on others then those others have a right to influence my choices (even to make them in extreme cases - murder is a good example).

The important point is that decisions like not wearing the gear have no direct effect on anyone but yourself.

[swbarnett]

What about when your actions influence TPTB to further restrict the freedom of others?
This is a matter of duress. I refuse to live my life in a way that I abhor (or expect anyone else to) simply because someone in power may take it the wrong way and try to impose more draconian laws.

[swbarnett]

I usually don't disagree with too much of what you say, but tbh, what you've said there sounds pretty mean spirited to me
I can understand how it may seem that way. All I'm trying to say is that we need to be allowed to live our own lives how we see fit and take responsibility for our own choices. Even when we feel those choices are unfairly influenced by others. This includes both the choice to (or not to) wear the gear and the choice to pick up the pieces when someone else comes to grief.

I would prefer that there were no pieces to pick up. I'm not trying to advocate recklessness. However, if the cost is a severe loss of personal freedom then the cost is too high.


And all I can say to that is I sure hope you never call upon her need to test that statement you've so boldly made
Actually, it wasn't me that originally made it. It was her. She has said this to me on numerous occasions. And I to her.

[swbarnett]

That's probably because she doesn't like you very much.
On the contrary. She is my wife second and my best friend first. She just understands that psycological well being is far more important than being miserably safe.

[MSTRS]

...take responsibility for our own choices..

But that's just it. We DON'T have to take responsibility. Collectively, others are going to 'pick up the tab' in time/money.
Individually, we need to be cognisant of that fact each and every time we decide to ride, how to ride and what to wear.
Others ARE affected by our freedom of choice. And if enough exercise that freedom irresponsibly (and come to grief), then that freedom to choose will be taken away.
If you really want to be free of responsibility to the rest of the community, then divorce your friends and family, and go live on a deserted island.

[swbarnett]

But that's just it. We DON'T have to take responsibility.
Well, no, we don't HAVE to do anything except obey the laws of physics. But if we all want to get along and create a free, caring, society we do.


Collectively, others are going to 'pick up the tab' in time/money.
Yes, but that's their choice, not mine. If I came to grief and noone wanted to help I have only myself to blame. I would feel no ill will to the people that just passed me by.


Individually, we need to be cognisant of that fact each and every time we decide to ride, how to ride and what to wear.
Others ARE affected by our freedom of choice.
I have no disagreement with this. Yes, me riding is a factor in that effect. This is like the rhetoric that "speed was a factor" in an accident when their are many other factors, any one of which could've stopped the accident if they were different.

Just as my decision to ride has an affect on others, so their decision to ... (drive, walk, marry me knowing I'm a biker or whatever...) adds to or detracts from that effect.


And if enough exercise that freedom irresponsibly (and come to grief), then that freedom to choose will be taken away.
Ah, but what does irresponsibly actually mean? Each individual has their own definition. Each society has their own definition. Each generation has their own definition. It s a fluid concept. Today it seems that riding without the gear is considered irresponsible by the majority of our society. In the 50s it was perfectly normal and widely accepted. Besides, if we start thinking "we better do x or TPTB will make x compulsory" then all we've done is create a de-facto law that has exactly the same affect as the law we're trying to avoid.


If you really want to be free of responsibility to the rest of the community, then divorce your friends and family, and go live on a deserted island.
I don't want to be free of responsibility. This is exactly my point. Personal responsibility. I'll take responsibility for my decisions and you take responsibility for yours.

[Genie]

Yes, I did have to stop!
As a nurse, I take the Hippocratic Oath very seriously, and was honour bound to stop.
I did not suffer psychological harm as a result of doing so, nor did it affect me deeply, but I was pissed off at the selfishness of the rider's actions.

With respect, you missed my point completely.

Watched tv the other evening and this fella on a bike meet a car bumper...all his gear stopped his body getting torn to shreds.....the bones on the inside we pretty wrecked but at least he didn't have to contend with loss of skin.

You are right Tart.....It does affect all of us and those that disagree are only doing so to be arguementative.

[davereid]

It does affect all of us and those that disagree are only doing so to be arguementative.

That's simplistic I think.

No one wants to have an accident, particularly old dudes like me, who were allowed to play "barbador" and climb trees, as we know what pain feels like, and we have done since we were 4.

But, for every carer who has been to a motorcycle accident and said "How terrible, why was the rider not wearing ATGATT", there has been a carer who has arrived and said "Why was this person riding a motorcycle".

Its influenced by where you live yourself.

The modern biker straps his helmet on like a religion, convinced by the safety gods that he has paid homage. The next generation will wear ATGATT, bright jackets, and be convinced they have made an adequate sacrifice.

I accept I am arguing with you.. but I'm not doing it just to be argumentative.

In these threads we see a basic dilemma.

Do we have the right to use force (laws) to make other people safer against their will ?
We generally argue that we do, as we have a community responsibility to help others, and therefore we have the authority, to limit their behaviour to make our wallets fatter, and avoid the discomfort of viewing them injured. That is to say, we accept that their actions will hurt us, even if only via a very indirect link.

For me, that's too long a bow to draw.

If my actions directly hurt you or your family, or cause environmental damage, or cause general hatred for for you, then you have the right to defend yourself.

But to impose compulsory insurance on me, and then to use force to modify my behaviour, to limit your risk in the insurance system, or to avoid offence if you see me injured, crosses the line.

The reason it crosses the line is not so much to do with ATGATT. Its more to do with the fact that now you have accepted it's OK to use force to get outcomes for things hat only distantly affect you, I can't see where it will stop.

You wont understand, until you are old enough to look back. And see all the things you used to do, that you enjoyed, are now illegal, just for your own good.

Be careful for what you ask for. You might end up very very very safe. And live for ever.

[MSTRS]

Yes, but that's their choice, not mine. If I came to grief and noone wanted to help I have only myself to blame. I would feel no ill will to the people that just passed me by.



Are you being deliberately obtuse? Where did I say anything about people stopping to help on the side of the road?

None of us have a choice when it comes to taxes (some of which will go to St Johns or DHB ambo service), or ACC, or any of the myriad 'little cuts' we all are lumped with. Your co-workers who have to do extra to keep your job going while you are out of commission, they don't have a choice. Your family and friends may have a choice whether to visit you in hospital, but not much of one really. And when you get sent home, still unable to do much for yourself, those that live in your house, or care about you, don't have much of a choice when it comes to doing your cooking, feeding you maybe, showering you, toilet etc.

That said, if you took all reasonable steps to protect yourself as far as gear etc was concerned, then nobody can really complain. But if you went out in shorts, t-shirt, padding basin (saying it doesn't affect anyone else) then we have the choice of saying "Fuck. What a knob." But that's about the only choice we have.

Again, because some are obviously hard of hearing, your choice/s do affect others to a greater/lesser degree. It is that simple.

[swbarnett]

and those that disagree are only doing so to be arguementative.
Please don't assume you know what's going on in another's head. You obviously do not understand my motivation.

[swbarnett]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Where did I say anything about people stopping to help on the side of the road?

None of us have a choice when it comes to taxes (some of which will go to St Johns or DHB ambo service), or ACC, or any of the myriad 'little cuts' we all are lumped with. Your co-workers who have to do extra to keep your job going while you are out of commission, they don't have a choice. Your family and friends may have a choice whether to visit you in hospital, but not much of one really. And when you get sent home, still unable to do much for yourself, those that live in your house, or care about you, don't have much of a choice when it comes to doing your cooking, feeding you maybe, showering you, toilet etc.
Actually, we do have a choice. Most of us choose to take what's handed to us without a fight. It may be Hobson's choice but it's still a choice.


That said, if you took all reasonable steps to protect yourself
Again we come back to the same point - who's to say what's reasonable?


Again, because some are obviously hard of hearing, your choice/s do affect others to a greater/lesser degree. It is that simple.
And again, I don't deny this. I never have.

[DEATH_INC.]

All these noble plights for freedom may have worked in the past, but here and now we need to pull our heads in and toe the line, so in the future we can have the chance to go back to the ways of old, it is our choice really.

[Jonno.]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Where did I say anything about people stopping to help on the side of the road?

None of us have a choice when it comes to taxes (some of which will go to St Johns or DHB ambo service), or ACC, or any of the myriad 'little cuts' we all are lumped with. Your co-workers who have to do extra to keep your job going while you are out of commission, they don't have a choice. Your family and friends may have a choice whether to visit you in hospital, but not much of one really. And when you get sent home, still unable to do much for yourself, those that live in your house, or care about you, don't have much of a choice when it comes to doing your cooking, feeding you maybe, showering you, toilet etc.


If you have a crash with proper gear and suffer the same injuries do you think your family doesn't care? :rofl: Using that logic motorcycles should be banned.

[swbarnett]

All these noble plights for freedom may have worked in the past, but here and now we need to pull our heads in and toe the line, so in the future we can have the chance to go back to the ways of old, it is our choice really.
You toe the line and become a voluntary slave. I plan to enjoy life like I never have before.

[jono035]

If you have a crash with proper gear and suffer the same injuries do you think your family doesn't care? :rofl: Using that logic motorcycles should be banned.

To be fair, I think he meant that being injured affects your family and wearing gear is likely to lessen the chance of those injuries.

I generally think that gear isn't a substitute for riding defensively and staying aware of your surroundings (with a healthy helping of 'assume all cagers are actively trying to kill you), but the simple matter for me is: I had a small off, with better boots I might have avoided a broken ankle. Not wearing armored pants, I would have definitely had a very serious knee injury in addition.

Simple.

[yungatart]

Blah blah blah
We will have to agree to disagree then, won't we?

[MSTRS]

And again, I don't deny this. I never have.

So why have you and others been flapping your gums about the evils of gear nazis?
That was never the point of this thread.

For the record, I wear ATGATT, but I'm not anal about it when just going for a wof (say). I do get 'upset' when I see the scooter brigade (un)dressed in Billabong's finest, helmet straps flapping in the breeze, for instance.
I am mindful that no amount of gear is a substitute for not falling off. By the same token, if I do fall off I want to have done what I can to mitigate injury. I do that for me, not for the common good. Whatever the reasons that others do/not wear ATGATT, if enough continue to not take such steps and are (more) hurt as a result, then we can all be sure what will happen.
Volunteer, or be volunteered. That is the only logical choice.

[Spearfish]

So why have you and others been flapping your gums about the evils of gear nazis?
That was never the point of this thread.

For the record, I wear ATGATT, but I'm not anal about it when just going for a wof (say). I do get 'upset' when I see the scooter brigade (un)dressed in Billabong's finest, helmet straps flapping in the breeze, for instance.
I am mindful that no amount of gear is a substitute for not falling off. By the same token, if I do fall off I want to have done what I can to mitigate injury. I do that for me, not for the common good. Whatever the reasons that others do/not wear ATGATT, if enough continue to not take such steps and are (more) hurt as a result, then we can all be sure what will happen.
Volunteer, or be volunteered. That is the only logical choice.

Your right. it could go so to far that the blubbemint could announce they want to ban black or low viz colours!!!

Huge outcry we want stats!

Thousands turn out for protests

Then they back down with the ministerial hero saying the listened to the sheeple and high vis vests are the compromise.

Yahoo we showed em!!

Or we could simply put just the fecken gear on.

[swbarnett]

So why have you and others been flapping your gums about the evils of gear nazis?
That was never the point of this thread.
The point of this thread, as has been pointed out to me, is to call a rider selfish for not wearing the gear. Is this not the word of a "gear nazi"? Of someone intolerant of another's personal choice?


I do get 'upset' when I see the scooter brigade (un)dressed in Billabong's finest, helmet straps flapping in the breeze, for instance.
I used to until I came to the conclusion that the only direct impact is to themselves and there's no point getting hot under the collar for something that's really none of my business in the first place.


Volunteer, or be volunteered.
What's the difference? It matters not if we restrict our own freedom for fear of TPTB or we let TPTB do it for us. Personally, I'd rather exercise my freedoms (and allow others to unharassed) while they still exist.

[jonbuoy]

Which is more dangerous - riding like a twat in full leathers or riding like a policeman in shorts and T shirt?

[MSTRS]

The point of this thread, as has been pointed out to me, is to call a rider selfish for not wearing the gear.
To an extent, yes, but there's a subtle difference between riders who don't care and riders who justify their lack of gear by saying it affects no-one else. These people are only fooling themselves (and trying to fool others) if they really believe that.



What's the difference? There's a world of difference in being able to do anything on your own terms...

[DEATH_INC.]

I plan to enjoy life like I never have before.
That seems just a shade selfish from where I'm sitting. Good luck to you.

[swbarnett]

To an extent, yes, but there's a subtle difference between riders who don't care and riders who justify their lack of gear by saying it affects no-one else. These people are only fooling themselves (and trying to fool others) if they really believe that.
Yes, but again we come back to the difference between direct and in-direct affect. If we worry about every little indirect affect our actions have on others we'd go mad. Until now I've spent my whole life doing exactly that. I've even considered giving up riding more than once because of it (and did for ten years). My passion for riding created an inner conflict between the "selfish" act of riding and my desire to please everyone around me. I have only recently resolved this by recognising that noone has the right to expect me to give up the things I love simply because they want to save me from myself and save themselves from the minor inconvenience of ACC costs and the risk of seeing me in agony.

Wearing the gear (or not) has a direct affect only on the rider.


There's a world of difference in being able to do anything on your own terms...
But you're not doing it on your own terms if you're only doing it because not doing it might lead to doing it becoming compulsary.

[swbarnett]

That seems just a shade selfish from where I'm sitting. Good luck to you.
Enjoying life is not selfish. The flow-on affects to those around you is exactly what we need.

Just remember - "Smile and the world smiles with you."

I plan to enjoy life and help those around me do likewise. All without compromising my freedom to choose my own destiny (or theirs).

[Grubber]

I don't. If my actions have a direct affect on others then those others have a right to influence my choices (even to make them in extreme cases - murder is a good example).

The important point is that decisions like not wearing the gear have no direct effect on anyone but yourself.

What utter bollocks....what planet do you live on?
Every day you or i ride it has an effect on others. whether or not we crash doesn't matter.
Emotional worry on the low side of concern to massive upheaval if we crash and die, ending up leaving our loved ones without a Dad or brother or whatever.
Your rational leaves me shaking my head young fella.

[Grubber]

That's simplistic I think.

No one wants to have an accident, particularly old dudes like me, who were allowed to play "barbador" and climb trees, as we know what pain feels like, and we have done since we were 4.

But, for every carer who has been to a motorcycle accident and said "How terrible, why was the rider not wearing ATGATT", there has been a carer who has arrived and said "Why was this person riding a motorcycle".

Its influenced by where you live yourself.

The modern biker straps his helmet on like a religion, convinced by the safety gods that he has paid homage. The next generation will wear ATGATT, bright jackets, and be convinced they have made an adequate sacrifice.

I accept I am arguing with you.. but I'm not doing it just to be argumentative.

In these threads we see a basic dilemma.

Do we have the right to use force (laws) to make other people safer against their will ?
We generally argue that we do, as we have a community responsibility to help others, and therefore we have the authority, to limit their behaviour to make our wallets fatter, and avoid the discomfort of viewing them injured. That is to say, we accept that their actions will hurt us, even if only via a very indirect link.

For me, that's too long a bow to draw.

If my actions directly hurt you or your family, or cause environmental damage, or cause general hatred for for you, then you have the right to defend yourself.

But to impose compulsory insurance on me, and then to use force to modify my behaviour, to limit your risk in the insurance system, or to avoid offence if you see me injured, crosses the line.

The reason it crosses the line is not so much to do with ATGATT. Its more to do with the fact that now you have accepted it's OK to use force to get outcomes for things hat only distantly affect you, I can't see where it will stop.

You wont understand, until you are old enough to look back. And see all the things you used to do, that you enjoyed, are now illegal, just for your own good.

Be careful for what you ask for. You might end up very very very safe. And live for ever.

don't think anyone is forcing you to wear the gear....just think it's a fucked up reason not to. Just because you don't like being "told". Sounds like a spoilt little kid to me. We can ride forever with good gear on just the same as without so why wouldn't ya. Just doesn't make sense to me unless your just trying to be a pratt. (not you personally, but...)

[Spearfish]

Some can learn by observation.
Some can only learn by experience.
Most use the best parts of the first two.
The rest just get offended if someone dares to tell them they have something to learn.

"Cover you skin'" seems just as offensive to the last of the list, having to be told through coercive laws is just fecken embarrassing.

[jonbuoy]

Good gear will save your skin from a light spill and if your lucky enough just to skid across the tarmac to a gentle stop you will walk away, the same rider in shorts and T shirt is in a bit of bother. But if anyone is under the false impression leathers are going to do much good at all in a high speed crash and hitting a solid object on the road - your dreaming.

Maybe look at peoples riding style before dismissing anyone not wearing ATGATT as a complete fool.

[Katman]

Maybe look at peoples riding style before dismissing anyone not wearing ATGATT as a complete fool.

That's actually a damn good call.

The ATGATT crowd would have a fit if they saw me head out on a WOF road test.

The correct attitude will save far more skin than leather ever will.

[Argyle]

That's actually a damn good call.

The ATGATT crowd would have a fit if they saw me head out on a WOF road test.

The correct attitude will save far more skin than leather ever will.

I can tell you out of PERSONAL experience that full leather suit with armour (Berik), back armour, good helmet, gloves and proper boots will save you from allot of injury.. I smashed right into the bonnet of a big VOLVO V70 doing 90kmh (will name that a high impact accident) and i was left with no broken bones, no scrape marks and an undamaged back.. I could just imagine how I would look like if I was wearing a pair of shorts and a vinyl dress jacket... These things save you, mate!

Ofcourse the correct attitude is very important, in my case the car turned infront of me...

[Katman]

I can tell you out of PERSONAL experience that full leather suit with armour (Berik), back armour, good helmet, gloves and proper boots will save you from allot of injury.. I smashed right into the bonnet of a big VOLVO V70 doing 90kmh (will name that a high impact accident) and i was left with no broken bones, no scrape marks and an undamaged back.. I could just imagine how I would look like if I was wearing a pair of shorts and a vinyl dress jacket... These things save you, mate!

Ofcourse the correct attitude is very important, in my case the car turned infront of me...

I never said that the correct gear is worthless (and most certainly will never pooh-pooh anyone pushing it's usage).

I do however, believe that the correct attitude is worth 10 times the correct gear.

[Berries]

I’m with SWB on this. If the OP hadn’t been a bike rider the question wouldn’t have been why wasn’t he wearing this piece of gear or that piece of gear, it would have been why was he riding a dangerous motorbike.

We all choose to ride motorbikes, which is a risk in itself. We all choose to wear the clothes we do when riding to reduce the risk of injury, or not, if we do crash. I shake my head sometimes when I see a t-shirt on a sportsbike, but I’m not going to go up to them and tell them they are wrong. Their choice, nothing to do with me. It’s the same with anyone who is wearing less gear than what I think is acceptable. But then some of the people on here will disagree strongly with what I think is an acceptable level of protection. It’s all relative. In the end we all ride bikes, and that is where the real risk lies. Stay upright and we could all ride naked.

What is ATGATT anyway ?
Does it mean full face helmets only ?
Does it specify helmet colour ? Should it, seeing as white helmets are supposed to improve visibility.
Replacement every 12 months ok with you ?
What do you mean you don’t consider a back protector as part of ATG ? Law says it is now.
What about the colour of your leathers, surely they should all be hi-viz yellow.

Slippery slope if you ask me.

So what happens if ATGATT is made compulsory ? Well, the road toll won’t come down, so the next step must be even more protection, like neck braces and one piece air suits. And if that doesn’t work ? Eventually the conclusion will be that motorbikes are dangerous, and the only way to make them safer is to build a metal cage around them.

The best idea is not to crash.

And don’t ride naked.
Unless you are really really fit.

[Berries]

Talking of ATGATT, surely linked brakes and ABS will do more to reduce the carnage than clothing - prevent the crash happening in the first place. Should ATGATT therefore refer to the bike as well ?

[Ocean1]

Talking of ATGATT, surely linked brakes and ABS will do more to reduce the carnage than clothing - prevent the crash happening in the first place. Should ATGATT therefore refer to the bike as well ?

I understand the good systems are pretty good. But some aren’t worth the ink on the glossy brochure.

The technology exists to prevent almost all traction loss issues, within reason. Wouldn’t want to see it made mandatory though, even if I chose to use it.

I reckon most solo accidents are caused by panic, sometimes from just a rogue perception rather than an actual unsafe velocity. I’ve seen reasonably experienced riders stand a bike up under brakes mid-corner purely because their brains have had a wee systems crash.

Think it’s possible to teach people to manage those moments, not sure many would survive the lesson if the classroom is the road though.

[swbarnett]

Every day you or i ride it has an effect on others. whether or not we crash doesn't matter.
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.


Your rational leaves me shaking my head young fella.
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.

[mister.koz]

I never said that the correct gear is worthless (and most certainly will never pooh-pooh anyone pushing it's usage).

I do however, believe that the correct attitude is worth 10 times the correct gear.



...
All I'm advocating is personal responsibility.

I'm with you guys here, although i don't think anything takes the importance away from good gear.

ABS, linked breaks, traction control etc etc etc, none of this will replace smart thinking or will stop you flying off the road if you have over-cooked the corner or landed yourself in a patch of diesel while leaned over, only skill and experience will (and sometimes a bit of blind luck).

Even with a good attitude, a well maintained bike, lots of training and all the forethought in the world it is still possible to get into a situation where you are going to kiss the road, a car or other hard obstacles so why not wear good gear too?

If I saw someone on the side of the road in bits, even if I knew they were a complete idiot I would still do my best to help in any way I can. From first hand experience - waking up in a pool of metallic smelling red stuff and quickly realizing that you are broken in many places - there really is nothing like someone being there to help when you need it.

[davereid]

don't think anyone is forcing you to wear the gear....just think it's a fucked up reason not to. Just because you don't like being "told". Sounds like a spoilt little kid to me. We can ride forever with good gear on just the same as without so why wouldn't ya. Just doesn't make sense to me unless your just trying to be a pratt. (not you personally, but...)

Sadly I am forced to wear the gear, although its a rule I regularly break.

On a summers day, I like a quiet putt down a country road, helmet-less. I have done it for years, it was legal once ya know, and its a very enjoyable thing to do.

That's the point. I do it because, like sex without a condom, its just a little better.

That's why I ride a motorcycle instead of a car. Its just a little bit more fun than the car.

All that has happened, is that after 40 years of helmet laws, most bikers don't know what sex without a condom feels like. And if they try it, after just a few minutes they are scared, and run back and put the helmet on.

So, they now feel happy, even smug about banning helmet-less riding.

Your children will feel happy about banning ATGATT less riding.

Your grandchildren will likely feel that about any riding.

None of this means, that we should never wear a condom.

[MarkH]

I'm against legislation - there will always be people that break the law anyway.

But:
When you see someone riding a motorcycle in shorts, jandals, short sleeved shirt and a helmet - you can't help but think of how bad things would be in an accident. When you see that person come off a roundabout and open the throttle - it looks like fun but would it be any less fun with some proper footwear and a pair of gloves?

I'll accept that even with the thermal lining unzipped and removed from my leather jacket it is still a bit warm to wear that jacket in summer. I'll accept that my Draggin' Jeans are warmer than I'd like in hot weather. I'll accept that my hands can sweat even in my summer gloves. I'll accept that socks and shoes are going to be hotter on your feet than jandals. But if some clown pulls out at an intersection and knocks me off my bike sending me sliding down the road - I can't accept the pain of the road rash that I would get if I didn't have gloves and was wearing only a t-shirt and a pair of shorts.

If things go wrong I want at least some basic protection - not just for my head, but my hands are pretty useful too so a pair of motorcycle gloves has to be worth while - being unable to use your hands for weeks/months would be absolutely horrible. You'd have to have someone else wipe your arse for you after having a crap! (who says not wearing the gear doesn't directly affect anyone else?)

[swbarnett]

You'd have to have someone else wipe your arse for you after having a crap! (who says not wearing the gear doesn't directly affect anyone else?)
But it's still their choice to wipe your arse for you. You didn't make that choice for them, you just presented them with the choice to make.

[Spearfish]

But it's still their choice to wipe your arse for you. You didn't make that choice for them, you just presented them with the choice to make.


Many peoples sense of loyalty/mana(?)/responsibility will make the choice for them.
In the real world you wouldn't ride past a biker down no matter how far "in the zone" you were at the time.

If you know your wife or partner is like that then you really haven't given them any choice.

[swbarnett]

Many peoples sense of loyalty/mana(?)/responsibility will make the choice for them.
The choice is still theirs. My wife and I have discussed exactly this and we are both clear that should the worst happen the choice lies completely with the carer, not the injured.


In the real world you wouldn't ride past a biker down no matter how far "in the zone" you were at the time.
Totally agree. However, even though the choice to stop is one I've already made, I accept that this is my choice and no blame for where I find myself will go to the gear-less (or not) rider that I help.

I would certainly rather not attend a downed biker but I'm not going to let that desire allow me to think I have any right to tell someone else how to live their life.


If you know your wife or partner is like that then you really haven't given them any choice.
Irrespective of their inner nature the choice is still theirs and therefore the responsibility for the position in which they find themselves.

[DMNTD]

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

[Berries]

When you see someone riding a motorcycle ............................ you can't help but think of how bad things would be in an accident.

IMO if you ride a motorcycle ........................... you're a fucking idiot.
Like I said. Take out a few words and you get the view of the general non riding, legislation setting kind of people. Riding a bike is the problem, ATGATT is splitting hairs.

I find it funny how we all accept the risk of the former and yet some can't accept personal choice when it comes to the latter and start foaming at the mouth.

[Katman]

Like I said. Take out a few words and you get the view of the general non riding, legislation setting kind of people. Riding a bike is the problem, ATGATT is splitting hairs.


Yep. The root of our problem has nothing to do with gear.

[MSTRS]

I’m with SWB on this. If the OP hadn’t been a bike rider the question wouldn’t have been why wasn’t he wearing this piece of gear or that piece of gear, it would have been why was he riding a dangerous motorbike.



There is risk associated with all forms of transport.
Why was the person in that car, not wearing their seatbelt? Like helmets, there is legislation forcing use of them. It's slowly coming that airbags etc will become mandatory. As it is, manufacturers are voluntarily installing such stuff as standard equipment. The rest of the 'safety' gear for motorcyclists is no different.

[Spearfish]

The choice is still theirs. My wife and I have discussed exactly this and we are both clear that should the worst happen the choice lies completely with the carer, not the injured.



OK, Fair enough.

[Katman]

The choice is still theirs. My wife and I have discussed exactly this and we are both clear that should the worst happen the choice lies completely with the carer, not the injured.


There's often a wide gulf between what someone might say they're prepared to do and the reality of feeding and wiping the arse of someone else 24/7.

Just as there's often a wide gulf between someone blightely saying the decision of how much commitment a carer gives to them is the carer's to make and the sudden bitterness discovered by the injured person come the day that that commitment becomes too much for the carer.

[MSTRS]

There's often a wide gulf between what someone might say they're prepared to do and the reality of feeding and wiping the arse of someone else 24/7.

Just as there's often a wide gulf between someone blightely saying the decision of how much commitment a carer gives to them is the carer's to make and the sudden bitterness discovered by the injured person come the day that that commitment becomes too much for the carer.

Not to mention the carer could face charges of 'Failing to provide...' if they choose not to help, nor arrange for someone else to do so.

We're so far off track now, that this thread is a joke. I can't understand why people insist on complicating what is a very simple statement. Taking out the rights, wrongs and indifferences - the statement that what you do affects others, stands as a truth all by itself.

[MarkH]

the statement that what you do affects others, stands as a truth all by itself.

That is totally true.

I see someone riding a little scooter (what the ACC calls a moped) with a helmet being the only safety gear - I understand that they go only as fast as a bicycle (being ridden at a fast pace) but I just can't help thinking "would it be that hard to buy and wear a pair of gloves". Losing the use of your hands for a few months would add a LOT of cost to ACC for providing care as well as the medical bills. If there is room to store a helmet then there is room to store and helmet and a pair of gloves - just stuff the gloves into the helmet. Obviously all the gear in the world can be insufficient to save your life in some situations, but in a 'minor off' the more protective gear the better - helmet and gloves should be pretty standard and good shoes would be so much better than jandals (motorcycle boots would be better again), a good jacket can protect a fairly large area of skin, etc.

I've yet to tell someone to wear more gear - what they do is up to them. But I do wish people would at least wear gloves, even in summer. Even an injured biker can do more for themselves after they get out of hospital if they have the use of their hands.

[MarkH]

I would like to state clearly that despite my feeling that people should wear a reasonable level of protective gear - I really don't want to see regulations brought into law for this. I wouldn't consider a law that says you must wear motorcycle gloves to be overly draconian, but I do worry about where it would go from there.

I don't want to have to throw away all my perfectly good gear to buy all new 'NZ Safety approved' motorcycle gear because of some over-the-top law brought in to protect us from ourselves. My Dainese jacket cost me quite a bit, I'm not keen on replacing it because the law says I have to have a particular standards endorsement on the jacket for it to qualify as meeting the legal minimum.

I certainly would not like to see riding a motorcycle banned for being too dangerous or for only cars as safe as a Volvo or better being legal. We don't want the 'Demolition Man' idea of 'it's bad for you, therefore illegal', imagine how much of what we have today that could be made illegal! Fuck that! :angry:

[Ratti]

Considering "freedom" is becoming so expensive with the two extremes of biker risk takers affecting each other more than ever with ACC and law changes maybe its time a min standard of protective gear should be compulsory. In reality any compulsory gear standard probably wouldn't affect the largest group in the middle.


I wear the gear but I object strongly to anything that would enforce it upon me. I see the need for some "must dos" in law where the affect on others is direct. .


I would like to state clearly that despite my feeling that people should wear a reasonable level of protective gear - I really don't want to see regulations brought into law for this. I wouldn't consider a law that says you must wear motorcycle gloves to be overly draconian, but I do worry about where it would go from there.

I don't want to have to throw away all my perfectly good gear to buy all new 'NZ Safety approved' motorcycle gear because of some over-the-top law brought in to protect us from ourselves. My Dainese jacket cost me quite a bit, I'm not keen on replacing it because the law says I have to have a particular standards endorsement on the jacket for it to qualify as meeting the legal minimum.



I've stated this in another thread and may have done so here too. But it bears repeating.

As someone with no affiliation to a brand but speaking just as a repairer of gear, there is a lot of useless gear out there and I would like to see a NZ Standard for gear.
NOT COMPULSORY to wear it, but at least give riders the headsup to know that if they choose ATGATT, they will have a reasonable level of skin protection in an off.

Any theatre staff here? DO you know how they get gravel out of wounds? With a wire brush, yup the same wire brush you use to scrape rust off metal. Nice eh? Does as much damage as the off did but how the hell else does one remove stones and dirt ingrained into muscles and skin?

OUr choices do have an effect on others. and I agree with Tarty, it's selfish to head off and do your thing with the attitude of "FTW I'll do what I want". As a rider I choose to minimise risk in all the ways I can. ATGATT is only one strand of the process.

[MarkH]

As someone with no affiliation to a brand but speaking just as a repairer of gear, there is a lot of useless gear out there and I would like to see a NZ Standard for gear.
NOT COMPULSORY to wear it, but at least give riders the headsup to know that if they choose ATGATT, they will have a reasonable level of skin protection in an off.

I have no problem with the idea of some sort of standard or quality rating. I just wouldn't want to see regulations for every piece of gear we wear. I am happy to use gear I trust and if new gear has a rating or standard mark then that's all good too.

[jonbuoy]

I know this is "kiwi" biker so this doesn´t apply to NZ but overheating riding round town in 30 degrees plus heat in full leathers or cordura is pretty dangerous in itself. I have vented mesh jacket and trousers and I still prefer a pair of jeans and a light jacket. Everyone else is quietly sniggering in thier helmets and shorts at the crazy guy dripping in sweat wearing protective gear in this heat. Horses for courses.

[swbarnett]

There's often a wide gulf between what someone might say they're prepared to do and the reality of feeding and wiping the arse of someone else 24/7.

Just as there's often a wide gulf between someone blightely saying the decision of how much commitment a carer gives to them is the carer's to make and the sudden bitterness discovered by the injured person come the day that that commitment becomes too much for the carer.
Totally agree. We've also admitted to each other that we don't know what that choice would be if we had to make it. Would I feel bitter if I needed help and it was not forthcoming? Given the main reason I'm married in the first place is to be in a position to ensure the happiness of my wife I would hope not. I won't know for sure until it happens.

[MSTRS]

Totally agree. We've also admitted to each other that we don't know what that choice would be if we had to make it. Would I feel bitter if I needed help and it was not forthcoming? Given the main reason I'm married in the first place is to be in a position to ensure the happiness of my wife I would hope not. I won't know for sure until it happens.

Thing is, as you have said re your wearing of gear, that you take active steps to mitigate injury. Presumably because you wouldn't want your wife to have to do more in caring for you if you are injured.
That is all that 'sensible' motorcyclists can do, along with riding sensibly. Short of not riding at all.

[swbarnett]

Not to mention the carer could face charges of 'Failing to provide...' if they choose not to help, nor arrange for someone else to do so.
This has to be the worst law ever put on the books. Offering help is a tennet of a caring society. Enforcing it in law just proves that the society we live in is not as cring as we thought.


We're so far off track now, that this thread is a joke. I can't understand why people insist on complicating what is a very simple statement.
Calling a stranger selfish for their personal choice of not wearing gear is not a simple statement. It opens up a whole raft of social and cultrul issues.


Taking out the rights, wrongs and indifferences - the statement that what you do affects others, stands as a truth all by itself.
This has never been in dispute. It's the responsibility for that effect that is in dispute.

[MSTRS]

T

This has never been in dispute. It's the responsibility for that effect that is in dispute.

Ask yourself one thing. Who started it? That person bears the 'responsibility'...
Everyone else down the line only bears responsibility for what they do in response, and I'll guarantee they didn't ask to be put in that position.

[swbarnett]

, it's selfish to head off and do your thing with the attitude of "FTW I'll do what I want".
Is it not selfish to enforce our own morals and fears on to others?


As a rider I choose to minimise risk in all the ways I can. ATGATT is only one strand of the process.
I agree that the gear is a very good idea. However, if you really want to minimise the risk why do you ride? Or drive for that mater? Everybody has their own personal risk level and we don't have the right to force others out of theirs (be it by law or social pressure), up or down.

[swbarnett]

Ask yourself one thing. Who started it? That person bears the 'responsibility'...
Everyone else down the line only bears responsibility for what they do in response, and I'll guarantee they didn't ask to be put in that position.
Yes, the person not wearing the gear started the chain of events. However, anyone along that chain could've chosen to stop the cascade, the first responder could have let them be, they could have chosen not to start this thread, I could have chosen to stay out of the argument, you could have chosen not to respond.

We all bear the responsibility for our decisions. The rider bears the responsibility for their injuries that could have been avoided with good gear, the first responder bears the responsibility for the decision to stop and help, and so on ...

And I bear full responsibility for putting unpopular ideas and possibly losing a lot of supporters in the process.

Nobody asks to be put in this situation (or at least most of us). I hope I never have to make that choice. However, if I do it's my choice to make and I'll not let the downed rider take that away from me. Even if I don't like the outcome of my decision it's still mine.

[swbarnett]

Thing is, as you have said re your wearing of gear, that you take active steps to mitigate injury. Presumably because you wouldn't want your wife to have to do more in caring for you if you are injured.
That is all that 'sensible' motorcyclists can do, along with riding sensibly. Short of not riding at all.
My decision to wear gear actually has nothing to do with my wife. It's just something that I've always done because it seemed sensible to me. What constitutes gear for me has changed a lot over the years. I only purchased my first pair of armoured trousers 2 years ago because I needed some new rain pants and thought "why not?". Even now I don't always wear them (mostly in summer when I over-heat). My wife doesn't even own a piar. She's had a couple of major crashes in jeans with no ill effects that armoured trousers would've prevented so she can't see the need. I have no problem with this as it's her choice.

I actually agree with what you say about what a 'sensible' motorcyclist can do. The problem comes when we try to impose our sense of what is 'sensible' upon those with a different view. They have a right to their beliefs the same as us even if we disagree with them. Someone that believes motorcycles should be banned has no right to stop us riding just because they believe it's a bad idea.

[MSTRS]

...They have a right to their beliefs....

Of course. But they should be under no illusion as to who it affects...segueing right back to the point of this thread.

[MarkH]

I actually agree with what you say about what a 'sensible' motorcyclist can do. The problem comes when we try to impose our sense of what is 'sensible' upon those with a different view. They have a right to their beliefs the same as us even if we disagree with them. Someone that believes motorcycles should be banned has no right to stop us riding just because they believe it's a bad idea.

That is the main reason I don't like the idea of legislation for gear - there is too much room to expand on the requirements and make it really hard to be legal.

Helmet & gloves would be fine, but then full leathers even in Summer would be too darned hot - I'd rather it be a good idea rather than a legal requirement so I could make do with armoured jeans and hope for the best when it is too hot to wear my leather pants. Sometimes you decide to ride wearing comfortable walking shoes because you know you are going to have to walk several blocks - even though you realise that proper riding boots would offer you better protection. I always wear what I consider the minimum protective gear, but I don't want the government legislating that I have to wear full leathers, back protector, certified boots, gloves, helmet, fluro vest - so I can ride for 2 minutes to pick up a pizza.

[rastuscat]

Most days at work I have a conversation with someone about the seatbelt ticket I am writing them.

Almost always the conversation features the "Its my personal choice" style issue.

It's fairly easy to counter. The taxpayer (TP) pays for the ambulance, the A&E, the cosmetic surgeon reconstructing the face. Society covers the cost of the individuals stupidity.

So, actually, safety gear is both an individual choice and a collective responsibility.

It'd be nice if someone could opt out of the system e.g. wear no gloves, bin and get a hand injury, pay for your own hand treatment. Now, THAT is personal choice.

So there.

[Spearfish]

Most days at work I have a conversation with someone about the seatbelt ticket I am writing them.

Almost always the conversation features the "Its my personal choice" style issue.

It's fairly easy to counter. The taxpayer (TP) pays for the ambulance, the A&E, the cosmetic surgeon reconstructing the face. Society covers the cost of the individuals stupidity.

So, actually, safety gear is both an individual choice and a collective responsibility.

It'd be nice if someone could opt out of the system e.g. wear no gloves, bin and get a hand injury, pay for your own hand treatment. Now, THAT is personal choice.

So there.

Yeah but open face and German pecker-head style helmets are just to damn cool with board shorts and asics.:blink:
50% of bikes going over the auck harbour bridge this summer were riding "summer style" but I guess commuting with thousands of careful auck drivers is much safer than the higher risk, knee down, chasing the dragon around the coro loop runs.:shutup:

[swbarnett]

Most days at work I have a conversation with someone about the seatbelt ticket I am writing them.

Almost always the conversation features the "Its my personal choice" style issue.

It's fairly easy to counter. The taxpayer (TP) pays for the ambulance, the A&E, the cosmetic surgeon reconstructing the face. Society covers the cost of the individuals stupidity.

So, actually, safety gear is both an individual choice and a collective responsibility.

It'd be nice if someone could opt out of the system e.g. wear no gloves, bin and get a hand injury, pay for your own hand treatment. Now, THAT is personal choice.

So there.
I was wondering when this was going to come up. I say again, where does it stop? Have you seen the movie "Surrogates"? An OK movie but the best part was its' illustration of a society where noone ever leaves the home and lives are lived via robot surrogates. I can't think of anything worse. This is what you're advocating when you enforce laws that save people from themselves. No government of a free society has the right to inact such laws.

And as to the financial cost of not wearing the gear or a seatbelt. As a gear/seatbelt wearer I am more than willing to bear that cost as to do otherwise would leave us with one of two outcomes - either we end up in a truly authoritarian society totally devoid of free will or we end up with a group of people opting out and being left in a condition that becomes vastly more of a burden on society than the cost of fixing them in the first place.

If we allow restrictions on ACC and other forms of public funded healthcare based on "unacceptable risk" where do we draw the line? Many here seem to think the line lies with not wearing the gear when riding. What about riding in the first place? Many in society seem to think that motorcycling is a dangerous, irresponsible activity. Should we listen to them and remove ACC from all motorcycle casualties? What about cycling in Auckland traffic? What about adventure sports? Mountain climbing? Hunting? Just asking to be shot carrying a gun.

I am not God. My view of what contitutes a stupid, dangerous act is not an absolute. I do not claim to speak for anyone but myself when I talk about the level of risk I am willing to accept in my daily life. From what you say it is clear that you do. Are you claiming to be omniscient? Is your personal view of "acceptable risk" an absolute that all the rest of us must adhere to? Of course not. This is why we must not impose our own risk level on others.

[Grubber]

I have spent some time reading through this thread and have made a couple of posts myself.
It appears to me that the biggest issue seems to be that one or maybe 2 on the outside want to choose not to wear protective gear. The argument seems to be more for the "right" to choose rather than the "i just don't like wearing gear".
It all seems a bit odd to me that the "right" to choose can impair ones judgement so much, as i have no idea why someone would want to ride or for that matter undertake a seriously dangerous occupation without taking all the precautions to stay alive to some degree.
I've not yet seen anyone jump from a plane without a parachute.
To use the analogy that anyone at home (loved ones left behind etc) no the score sounds like bollocks to me. Does anyone believe for one minute that a major catastrophe would not effect them in anyway, even though i hear you say 'we have discussed this" i feel putting family and friends through this needlessly is possibly the most selfish thing you could do.
Lastly....what the hell is wrong with chucking on some gear. It's not that hard.

[Berries]

I have spent some time reading through this thread and have made a couple of posts myself.
It appears to me that the biggest issue seems to be that one or maybe 2 on the outside want to choose not to wear protective gear. The argument seems to be more for the "right" to choose rather than the "i just don't like wearing gear".
It all seems a bit odd to me that the "right" to choose can impair ones judgement so much, as i have no idea why someone would want to ride or for that matter undertake a seriously dangerous occupation without taking all the precautions to stay alive to some degree.

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.

I've not yet seen anyone jump from a plane without a parachute.
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.

[Katman]

I've not yet seen anyone jump from a plane without a parachute.


That is soooo yesterday.:zzzz:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lDBrdl2sZWs?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lDBrdl2sZWs?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Katman]

If we allow restrictions on ACC and other forms of public funded healthcare based on "unacceptable risk" where do we draw the line?


I'm interested to know where you draw the line.

Should we allow hoards of Rossi wannabes to create mayhem carving up the Coro Loop every weekend simply because we don't have the right to tell them that it's unacceptable? - even if by allowing it we see the eventual demise of Motorcycling?

How many deaths per weekend do you think we should allow?

How high a price are you prepared to pay for others to have the right to fuck things up for you.

[MSTRS]

The taxpayer (TP) pays
Actually, the people who pay their vehicle regos are the ones doing the paying for. A much smaller group than the taxpayer. Which means that the effect on the group is greater...


So, actually, safety gear is both an individual choice and a collective responsibility.
And there are too many people who don't think they owe society anything. JFK comes to mind...'Think not what the state can do for you, but what can you do for the state"


It'd be nice if someone could opt out of the system e.g. wear no gloves, bin and get a hand injury, pay for your own hand treatment. Now, THAT is personal choice.

A sliding scale of cover? A nice thought, already done on KB some time ago, and mercilessly stamped on. Just like ideas of legislating for certain standards is in this thread.
But you are right, and it should be supported by SWB at least, who seems to be advocating the individual's right to do as they please. Which is fine as long as they are the ones doing the paying, if it all turns pear shaped.

[davereid]

It's fairly easy to counter. The taxpayer (TP) pays for the ambulance, the A&E, the cosmetic surgeon reconstructing the face. Society covers the cost of the individuals stupidity.

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 .!

[MSTRS]

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

[rastuscat]

Hi All

I'm aware that ACC pays. Given that most people who pay ACC levies also pay tax, I just used the term taxpayers.

I regard having to pay ACC as just another form of tax, so again, I think the taxpayer covers the cost.

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 just regard allowing people to do completely stupid things (t-shirt, shorts and jandals on a moped) that cost the taxpayer (oh alright, ACC payer) as really odd.

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?

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.

[MSTRS]

I'm aware that ACC pays. Given that most people who pay ACC levies also pay tax, I just used the term taxpayers.


Big difference.
Be fair to say that there are some 3 million taxpayers? More, if you consider GST. Less than a million vehicle owners paying into ACC's motor fund?
Because the pool is smaller and funded by less people, the effect on each individual's contributions is greater. Getting OT, but this is the problem that pollies have created by splitting ACC into different funds...m/c crash costs have a greater effect as a % of the whole, so we got hit with bigger increases than most of the other contributors.

[Spearfish]

Hi All

I'm aware that ACC pays. Given that most people who pay ACC levies also pay tax, I just used the term taxpayers.

I regard having to pay ACC as just another form of tax, so again, I think the taxpayer covers the cost.

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 just regard allowing people to do completely stupid things (t-shirt, shorts and jandals on a moped) that cost the taxpayer (oh alright, ACC payer) as really odd.

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?

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.

I'm glad your boss did can it but I understand your frustration.

If you do down that path then you could say that learner bikers who jump on an aprilia rs250 with just the basic handling course and a scratch card under their belt should be charged because they haven't completed approved training courses, or even going from a 125 scooter, getting their 6f and buying a modified R1 never having ridden a geared bike let alone the amount of power on tap, all probably reckless/careless driving but they are well within the law. (Maybe they could challenging Darwins Law of the fool, but that's another matter.)

[swbarnett]

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.
And then there's the WWII pilot who's parachute didn't function and survived a fall from 30,000 feet (or something like it) by crashing through pine branches that broke his fall.

[swbarnett]

I'm interested to know where you draw the line.

Should we allow hoards of Rossi wannabes to create mayhem carving up the Coro Loop every weekend simply because we don't have the right to tell them that it's unacceptable? - even if by allowing it we see the eventual demise of Motorcycling?

How many deaths per weekend do you think we should allow?

How high a price are you prepared to pay for others to have the right to fuck things up for you.
Where I draw the line is not the issue. From what you've posted I don't think we're that far apart in this. 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. 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.

[Berries]

And then there's the WWII pilot who's parachute didn't function and survived a fall from 30,000 feet (or something like it) by crashing through pine branches that broke his fall.
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.