Compulsory ATGATT Yay or Nay

[superman]

So what is the call on All The Gear All The Time?

Should it be a legislatively controlled action, or should it be every bikers given right to wear shorts/t-shirt on hot days?

Even if it was enforced you'd still end up with people wearing shit gear obviously, much like the helmet laws and seeing people wearing half helmets.

And yes people will say just educate riders instead of law, but as seen in places which don't have helmet laws you still get people who won't wear them.

Just would be interesting to see the KB populations take on it, as it could even be a useful law (much like the helmet law) and maybe drag those dreaded ACC costs down. Plus it's not quite as ridiculous sounding as a high-vis jacket law.

[Swoop]

Bollocks. Freedom of choice.
SOTG-SOTT.

[Bald Eagle]

Now that's a can of worms you've opened. Who decides what constitutes compliant gear ?
Not to mention the whole right to choose lobby...

[Bassmatt]

SOTG-SOTT.

??? (10 char)

[Whynot]

So what is the call on All The Gear All The Time?

no way.
what's next? make scooterists and cyclists wear leather?
how about pedestrians?
car drivers to wear helmets?
electronic gps implants to stop people speeding?

[superman]

Now that's a can of worms you've opened. Who decides what constitutes compliant gear ?
Not to mention the whole right to choose lobby...

CE rated gear is already available for everything including helmets, so it would be the same as how they enforce compliant helmets I guess. CE approved = legal

[superman]

no way.
what's next? make scooterists and cyclists wear leather?
how about pedestrians?
car drivers to wear helmets?
electronic gps implants to stop people speeding?

Didn't people say the same when helmets became law?

[Swoop]

???
Summertime = some of the gear - some of the time!
"ride to the conditions".

[Whynot]

Didn't people say the same when helmets became law?

The helmet law is a little bit easier to enforce ....
and the nanny state is already ruling our lives enough.

[bogan]

Nay.

Firstly where do you draw the line at ATG, jacket and helmet? gloves? boots? pants? back protector? Some of these will result in a much more uncomfortable ride, and introduce distractions and potentially put the rider at higher risk, big padded black pants are good for open road protection, but a bastard to have on in sunny round town riding.

Far better to avoid crashing entirely, thats where the focus should be.

Also, think about how many other activities are around the same risk/benefit for additional safety gear, lets not start down that slippery slope. Speaking of which, those waterslides are a bloody menace, better put some non-slip padding down at the bottom just in case :shutup:

[Usarka]

CE rated gear is already available for everything including helmets, so it would be the same as how they enforce compliant helmets I guess. CE approved = legal

Only the armour is CE rated not the jacket/pants etc. So can I stick CE armour under my hoodie and be ok??


My boots don't have CE armour, do I have to get a new pair? Jeeze that'll be expensive and also mean half the stock in the shops will need to be ditched. If not how come my boots are ok and my michael^TM jordan basketball boots aren't?

[superman]

The helmet law is a little bit easier to enforce ....
and the nanny state is already ruling our lives enough.

It's different when we have a socialist health system and we pay for eachothers choices. Someone feels like eating a lot/smoking and we pay for the impeding cancer treatment.

Same if someone chooses to play rugby, or not wear ATGATT riding a bike at over 27 metres per second. Want to change to a pay for yourself health system though and then force only rich people to get treatment, NO! So nanny laws seem to be a must for the situation our country's in IMO.

Choice is of course something important, but in a safety situation surely making people more safe is not something bad. Such as seatbelt and helmet laws have shown.

Do what you want if it doesn't cost me money, if it costs me money then I give a damn. I have to bloody fork out 4 weeks of my wage to pay for just a 250cc bike and car rego.

[Jantar]

CE rated gear is already available for everything including helmets, so it would be the same as how they enforce compliant helmets I guess. CE approved = legal
So my leathers would no longer be considered suitable? What about my kevlar jeans with soft armour in the knees and calves?

If there is to be any standard as to what is acceptable and what isn't, then that standard should relate to impact resistance, abrasion resistance, and weather resistance, not just to some armour standard.

[Usarka]

Do what you want if it doesn't cost me money, if it costs me money then I give a damn. I have to bloody fork out 4 weeks of my wage to pay for just a 250cc bike and car rego.

Then campaign/vote to have the system changed. ACC is supposed to be a no-fault system.

That line of reasoning bugs me. If it were the way things worked the government should ban mountain bikes and rugby.

[superman]

So my leathers would no longer be considered suitable? What about my kevlar jeans with soft armour in the knees and calves?

Oh they only do armoured ratings, sorry did not realise.

New rating system for abrasion? Urg create more bureaucratic jobs... yaaaay.

[SpankMe]

No more bloody laws!, for anything! countries in the west already have too much legislation. Can't do this, can't that, I tired of it. Individually the laws might make sense, but overall they just take away the feeling of freedom.

I can't wait until I retire to Thailand.

[bogan]

It's different when we have a socialist health system and we pay for eachothers choices. Someone feels like eating a lot/smoking and we pay for the impeding cancer treatment.

Or some bastard politicians feel like sticking their snout in the trough and charging almost double what they could/should.

[Whynot]

It's different when we have a socialist health system and we pay for eachothers choices. Someone feels like eating a lot/smoking and we pay for the impeding cancer treatment.

Same if someone chooses to play rugby, or not wear ATGATT riding a bike at over 27 metres per second. Want to change to a pay for yourself health system though and then force only rich people to get treatment, NO! So nanny laws seem to be a must for the situation our country's in IMO.

Choice is of course something important, but in a safety situation surely making people more safe is not something bad. Such as seatbelt and helmet laws have shown.

Do what you want if it doesn't cost me money, if it costs me money then I give a damn. I have to bloody fork out 4 weeks of my wage to pay for just a 250cc bike and car rego.

I suggest you do a bit of research, we are not the only country in the world with a socialist health system.

[Whynot]

No more bloody laws!, for anything! countries in the west already have too much legislation. Can't do this, can't that, I tired of it. Individually the laws might make sense, but overall they just take away the feeling of freedom.


Completely agree.

[Usarka]

New rating system for abrasion? Urg create more bureaucratic jobs... yaaaay.

Exactly the issue. And remember Cordura is just a trademark, there are other fabrics out there also. And different grades of leather.

Effectively every bit of kit sold would need to be tested. Who would do this? The likes of Alpline* would say hahahahahaa rofl. If it's the government or the importer then expect major price rises.

Might be a good idea in theory (i don't think so though) but not practicle or workable.....

[Katman]

Should it be a legislatively controlled action, or should it be every bikers given right to wear shorts/t-shirt on hot days?



I could ride naked and still be safe.

It's not the riding gear that needs sorting - it's what's inside the riders head.

[superman]

Then campaign/vote to have the system changed. ACC is supposed to be a no-fault system.

That line of reasoning bugs me. If it were the way things worked the government should ban mountain bikes and rugby.

Ban rugby :shit:... no that would be crazy... can't be done. Some dreams will just never be fulfilled.

They made base jumping illegal didn't they?!

And no they make high risk injury sports less attractive to people, show ads on tv of people breaking their necks playing rugby... get the numbers down. Like with smoking. :yes:

[awa355]

I wear what is comfortable, safe, senseable and to hell with the sanctimonious crowd.

I make my choices and wear the outcomes. Nobody else has ever had to cough up as a result of my actions on a bike in over 40 years riding.

Motorcycling is a pleasure, I indulge in for my own reasons, and to my own standards, be it full leathers in 30c heat or G string and the wifes' bra in winter.

My choice!!

[Usarka]

Ban rugby :shit:... no that would be crazy... can't be done. Some dreams will just never be fulfilled.

They made base jumping illegal didn't they?!

And no they make high risk injury sports less attractive to people, show ads on tv of people breaking their necks playing rugby... get the numbers down. Like with smoking. :yes:

Be careful where your argument is going dude....... :shutup:

[Banditbandit]

Now that's a can of worms you've opened. Who decides what constitutes compliant gear ?
Not to mention the whole right to choose lobby...

+1 - who decides what gear is compliant is a major issue

[R-Soul]

Ban rugby :shit:... no that would be crazy... can't be done. Some dreams will just never be fulfilled.

They made base jumping illegal didn't they?!



Yeah ban the All Blacks
[froma Bok supporter] :whistle:

[superman]

Yeah ban the All Blacks
[froma Bok supporter] :whistle:

Run, run, run, throw, run, run, dodge, slide. TRY!!!!!!!

:facepalm:

[Hellzie]

My initial response to the question was "Na they're only hurting themselves if they crash and injure themselves by not wearing gear so screw them."

BUT, that's not entirely true as when they crash and injure themselves it's the rest of us that are paying for ACC to fix them up...

BUT since I'm not one for a nanny state and since I believe people should have a choice in how seriously they take their own safety I think a better solution would be to provide incentives for and subsidize those that do reduce the risk of injury by wearing ATGATT.

[superman]

My initial response to the question was "Na they're only hurting themselves if they crash and injure themselves by not wearing gear so screw them."

BUT, that's not entirely true as when they crash and injure themselves it's the rest of us that are paying for ACC to fix them up...

BUT since I'm not one for a nanny state and since I believe people should have a choice in how seriously they take their own safety I think a better solution would be to provide incentives for and subsidize those that do reduce the risk of injury by wearing ATGATT.

Ooo, now that sounds very promising! :yes:

[Whynot]

provide incentives for and subsidize those that do reduce the risk of injury by wearing ATGATT.

and how exactly do you propose we do that then?

[Usarka]

I think a better solution would be to provide incentives for and subsidize those that do reduce the risk of injury by wearing ATGATT.

Still the same issues as listed above. Just how would you do that?

[superman]

and how exactly do you propose we do that then?

That part's easy. Put a box on the registration saying that all riders of the vehicle will be in full gear / won't be. Then you're under any cops radar for wearing/not wearing gear depending on how much you've paid. They can check just by typing in the rego of your bike, easy as pie. And put a symbol or something on the rego so that even random checks they can see whether you're complying with your registration.

[Big Dave]

With respect - Where's option five? 'Get. Fucked'.

[Scuba_Steve]

and how exactly do you propose we do that then?

your incentive is "you won't get fucked up (or as fucked) should you have a crash" & the subsidy comes with the money saved by not having any gear other than helmets compulsory & therefore regulated

[Hellzie]

and how exactly do you propose we do that then?

It's hard to police whether people are wearing their gear, so there is a certain level of trust required. It's not the first thing that requires trust when it comes to ACC or other forms of insurance.

There are other ways too, e.g. use some of the ACC money to subsidise bike gear so it's not so frikkin expensive.

Also, in the same way that your insurance is null and void if you are breaking the law, the same should apply to ACC. If you get a subsidy for supposedly wearing ATGATT and then crash and injure yourself while not wearing gear, then you shouldn't get help from ACC.

Just ideas.. instead of trying to force rules on people all the time for everything, maybe a better alternative is to provide incentives for being GOOD.

[Whynot]

That part's easy. Put a box on the registration saying that all riders of the vehicle will be in full gear / won't be. Then you're under any cops radar for wearing/not wearing gear depending on how much you've paid. They can check just by typing in the rego of your bike, easy as pie. And put a symbol or something on the rego so that even random checks they can see whether you're complying with your registration.

are you serious?

[Usarka]

That part's easy. Put a box on the registration saying that all riders of the vehicle will be in full gear / won't be. Then you're under any cops radar for wearing/not wearing gear depending on how much you've paid. They can check just by typing in the rego of your bike, easy as pie. And put a symbol or something on the rego so that even random checks they can see whether you're complying with your registration.

You need to think in legislative terms, because that's what you are proposing.

Ie. try defining "gear" for us.



What is the difference between a non bike leather jacket and a proper "gear".

Are safety boots acceptable gear?

What fabric jackets are acceptable gear?

I just bought this $30 chineese made textile bike jacket off trademe - is this acceptable gear?

How do I convince officer that these jeans are actually motorbike jeans - they are designed not to look like "gear".

If your talking subsidies based on bike shop sales, does that mean my Ducati T-Shirt is "gear"?


etc. etc etc.

[superman]

are you serious?

It's the same as having registered a 250cc bike to a 250cc rego? If the cop finds out it's not actually a 250cc bike then out comes the fine.

Same with having to wear glasses while riding/driving.

Would be just fine.

[Hellzie]

You need to think in legislative terms, because that's what you are proposing.

Ie. try defining "gear" for us.



What is the difference between a non bike leather jacket and a proper "gear".

Are safety boots acceptable gear?

What fabric jackets are acceptable gear?

I just bought this $30 chineese made textile bike jacket off trademe - is this acceptable gear?

How do I convince officer that these jeans are actually motorbike jeans - they are designed not to look like "gear".

If your talking subsidies based on bike shop sales, does that mean my Ducati T-Shirt is "gear"?


etc. etc etc.

That's detail... trust me, these legislative beurocrat types are good at defining things..

[Usarka]

That's detail... trust me, these legislative beurocrat types are good at defining things..

Right, so the government implements some beuracratic system to manage this and you expect to save money :lol: that's a goodie!

Edit: and sorry I don't know you and on this i certainly don't trust you...

[Whynot]

It's the same as having registered a 250cc bike to a 250cc rego? If the cop finds out it's not actually a 250cc bike then out comes the fine.


Hands up who's ridden a bike larger than 250cc on a learner or restricted ....
shall we do another poll ?? :innocent:

[superman]

You need to think in legislative terms, because that's what you are proposing.

Ie. try defining "gear" for us.

What is the difference between a non bike leather jacket and a proper "gear".

Are safety boots acceptable gear?

What fabric jackets are acceptable gear?

I just bought this $30 chineese made textile bike jacket off trademe - is this acceptable gear?

How do I convince officer that these jeans are actually motorbike jeans - they are designed not to look like "gear".

If your talking subsidies based on bike shop sales, does that mean my Ducati T-Shirt is "gear"?
etc. etc etc.

Who knows, they could subsidize on different levels depending on what kind of gear you have. You just write on the rego the minimum you would wear and therefore you get that subsidy. ie I'll always at least wear a leather jacket. And that corresponds to $xx subsidy.

[bogan]

Who knows, they could subsidize on different levels depending on what kind of gear you have. You just write on the rego the minimum you would wear and therefore you get that subsidy. ie I'll always at least wear a leather jacket. And that corresponds to $xx subsidy.

and what happens when i say i'll wear it all the time, then come off wearing only a mankini?

[Usarka]

It's the same as having registered a 250cc bike to a 250cc rego? If the cop finds out it's not actually a 250cc bike then out comes the fine.

It is extremely easy for a cop to tell if a bike is 250cc. He looks it up on the computer. How does he tell that me hong-wing-shoon super-leather jacket is designed/approved for bikes?


Who knows, they could subsidize on different levels depending on what kind of gear you have. You just write on the rego the minimum you would wear and therefore you get that subsidy. ie I'll always at least wear a leather jacket. And that corresponds to $xx subsidy.

So you are saying that an old non-motorcycle leather jacket I have from the 80's that would fall apart if I brush against the wall would get me a subsidy....?

If not, how does mr policeman "know" that you're wearing safety gear? Refer to question about draggin jeans - would the average policeman believe you when you tell him they are protective gear? No.

I'm getting brick marks on my forehead can someone else explain this better?

[Dadpole]

Picture this. The middle of nowhere and you get pulled over.

"Sorry about this Sir. We are under pressure to save you by doing random gear checks."

10 minutes later after you have produced the annual inspection certificate for your gear and it has been physically checked.

"Sorry to say this Sir, but your visor seems to be scratched and is no longer able to be used. You realise it is forbidden to ride without a closed visor due to someone being blinded back in 2011. I can give you a lift to the station and you can arrange someone to pick up your bike there"

[steve_t]

BUT since I'm not one for a nanny state and since I believe people should have a choice in how seriously they take their own safety I think a better solution would be to provide incentives for and subsidize those that do reduce the risk of injury by wearing ATGATT.

If you actually could have a system that subsidises ATGATT riders, who is going to pay for the shortfall? Do you raise rego by $200 across the board and then look to give subsidies to the ATGATT's while not subsidising the NoGears?

[Hellzie]

If you actually could have a system that subsidises ATGATT riders, who is going to pay for the shortfall? Do you raise rego by $200 across the board and then look to give subsidies to the ATGATT's while not subsidising the NoGears?

There will be no shortfall, raise the NoGears rego, and leave the ATGATT's rego as is.. or raise both but proportionally less for ATGATTs.

The thing that bothers me is the defeatist attitudes, why is it that if an alternative is suggested, for something that rewards good behaviour, everyone puts it in the impossible or too hard basket??? (not directed at you Steve_T)

[bogan]

The thing that bothers me is the defeatist attitudes, why is it that if an alternative is suggested, for something that rewards good behaviour, everyone puts it in the impossible or too hard basket??? (not directed at you Steve_T)

But does it reward good behaviour? It rewards people who put on more gear, good gear does not make good riders! Higher on the list would be to reward good riders, no claims bonus for instance.

Either way, look at the big picture, start down this road, and the risk factors must be applied to everything. The only logical conclusion being private accident (and likely health) insurance for everything, is that what you want?

[Hellzie]

But does it reward good behaviour? It rewards people who put on more gear, good gear does not make good riders! Higher on the list would be to reward good riders, no claims bonus for instance.

Either way, look at the big picture, start down this road, and the risk factors must be applied to everything. The only logical conclusion being private accident (and likely health) insurance for everything, is that what you want?

That's true, but in the case of an accident (which can happen to good riders) good gear is likely to result in less damage which should result in less ACC payout. And yes, I agree, reward good riders via no claims bonus and reduced rego etc for people that do certain courses etc.

Why is private the logical conclusion? In the same way that different CC ratings incur different rego amounts, you could do the same for ATGATT and / or courses / good riders (good track record).

[bogan]

Why is private the logical conclusion? In the same way that different CC ratings incur different rego amounts, you could do the same for ATGATT and / or courses / good riders (good track record).

Different cc amounts have been around for less than a year, and already people are calling for ATGATT discounts and no claims bonus's. If that happens, how long until bikers who pay more for their risk, call for rugby players to pay for theirs? or cyclists to pay for theirs? At which point opening it up to market competition will look like the best way to ensure fair levies for all, private insurance.

[grbaker]

Motorcycling is self correcting.

If you are stupid enough to wear shorts whilst riding a Wasp or Bee will see you right... a slide along the road will make a big point of your stupidity.

[Murray]

I think EVERYONE should be made to wear bubble wrap all the time!!! even when in bed in case they fall out during their sleep!!!

[Ocean1]

It's different when we have a socialist health system and we pay for eachothers choices

Get fucked. If you’re not happy paying for something you’re not getting then stop voting for socialist governments.


I think a better solution would be to provide incentives for and subsidize those that do reduce the risk of injury by wearing ATGATT.


and how exactly do you propose we do that then?

Easy. Better health care delivery.

231605


With respect - Where's option five? 'Get. Fucked'.

Aye. Big black dog etc.


I'm getting brick marks on my forehead can someone else explain this better?

Yes.

GET FUCKED.

[Usarka]

Thanks Ocean1! :lol:


There will be no shortfall, raise the NoGears rego, and leave the ATGATT's rego as is.. or raise both but proportionally less for ATGATTs.

And what happens when everyone complies? I'll tell you - everybody's fees will increase because some one needs to pay for this new beuracracy that you've created.


The thing that bothers me is the defeatist attitudes, why is it that if an alternative is suggested, for something that rewards good behaviour, everyone puts it in the impossible or too hard basket??? (not directed at you Steve_T)

What bothers me is people who live in fairyland (directed at you). This has been talked about many times before (do a search) and has had reasoned debate. No one has come up with a workable solution (and most people don't want one).

You put forward an idea, people have said it's not workable with clear examples of why it would be very difficult to implement, and you haven't provided any logical counter to any of these points. You expect the government to wave a magic wand and it not cost us anything and call those of us who don't believe in magic defeatists. However some of us understand how legislation works and what pitfalls, issues, and loopholes exist in the real world.

If you want to get past the "defeatists" then answer some of the issues that have been identified. I'm not saying write the legislation, but for starters you need to tell us how in practice the person enforcing this law knows if a piece of kit is acceptable or not.

[Mom]

Where is the option - Bring back the man with the red flag?

[steve_t]

Where is the option - Bring back the man with the red flag?

Red flag? Do you mean yellow hat? :innocent::corn:

[Mom]

Red flag? Do you mean yellow hat? :innocent::corn:

? Fluro Vest even. A complete P/T in case someone misses it.

As bikers/motorcyclists (cause I know that some dont like to be reffered to as bikers) there is only one person that can keep us safe, that is US! Up to us if we chose to wear gear or not, there really is no excuse (in my mind) for not wearing the best protection you can afford, but dont you dare try to MAKE anyone wear it. We have compulsory helmets, let that be an end to it.

[NONONO]

That's true, but in the case of an accident (which can happen to good riders) good gear is likely to result in less damage which should result in less ACC payout. And yes, I agree, reward good riders via no claims bonus and reduced rego etc for people that do certain courses etc.

Why is private the logical conclusion? In the same way that different CC ratings incur different rego amounts, you could do the same for ATGATT and / or courses / good riders (good track record).

2 words, fuck off.
Whoever started this thread, where the fck have you been?
Here's an idea..make the gear part of the WOF, limited shelf life, as we know the functionality of anything decreases with time and new innovation..If it's not within that time frame, you don't get a WOF.
Make ALL gear day glo yellow, oh and how bout little flashing lights?
If you have an accident and you are not wearing every bit of gear, and it's not all within regulation time approved condition....no pay out.
Hey, why not add another 2 wheels, that will reduce the RISK.
Put a shell around the chassis and why not add a couple of seat belts?
FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[steve_t]

? Fluro Vest even. A complete P/T in case someone misses it.


LOL, sorry, if you've not heard of the man in the yellow hat, he had a monkey named Curious George. You may be too young to remember them :drinkup:

[Latte]

Why not go full attgatt - wrap 3-4 inches of steel around us , and add 2 extra wheels for stability. Maybe a belt to stop us impacting the steel as well.

If we did it right we could even make space for passengers etc......

[Mom]

2 words, fuck off.
Whoever started this thread, where the fck have you been?
Here's an idea..make the gear part of the WOF, limited shelf life, as we know the functionality of anything decreases with time and new innovation..If it's not within that time frame, you don't get a WOF.
Make ALL gear day glo yellow, oh and how bout little flashing lights?
If you have an accident and you are not wearing every bit of gear, and it's not all within regulation time approved condition....no pay out.
Hey, why not add another 2 wheels, that will reduce the RISK.
Put a shell around the chassis and why not add a couple of seat belts?
FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Be quiet! Dont give the fuckers any ideas :pinch:


Why not go full attgatt - wrap 3-4 inches of steel around us , and add 2 extra wheels for stability. Maybe a belt to stop us impacting the steel as well.

If we did it right we could even make space for passengers etc......

Passengers would want to see where they were going, that would involve glass. Glass breaks. OMG! Glass breaks, passengers could get hurt :shit:

Yepper, I reckon a full wrap of cottonwool from birth. Boys will need more layers. For some reason they seem to take more risks than girls.

[AD345]

Well

I'm gonna ride naked


with Katman :love:

[PrincessBandit]

Well

I'm gonna ride naked


with Katman :love:

At least please give us some warning so we can hide indoors and avoid being unwitting witnesses!!!!


Although I usually wear ATGATT there are lots of times when I don't bother with leather pants (hot and sticky) and go for jeans. Have ridden a couple of times on short jaunts up to the shops without my jacket but feel almost naked without my jacket (nearest concession I'd ever get to riding with no kit on).
It's my personal choice to gear up when heading out on the bike but I'd hate to see it forced upon riders to have to do the same.

[steve_t]

Well

I'm gonna ride naked


with Katman :love:

Which one will be pillion? :shit:

[baptist]

Well

I'm gonna ride naked


with Katman :love:

What a horrible thought :buggerd::sick::sick::puke:

[swbarnett]

You missed one pole option:

F' off - even the helmet law is going too far.

[NONONO]

Be quiet! Dont give the fuckers any ideas :pinch:



Passengers would want to see where they were going, that would involve glass. Glass breaks. OMG! Glass breaks, passengers could get hurt :shit:

Yepper, I reckon a full wrap of cottonwool from birth. Boys will need more layers. For some reason they seem to take more risks than girls.

Sorry Boss, bad day at work, but...well...yknow, sort of...ish.

[Elysium]

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p318/skadeni/ATGATT1.jpg

[SPman]

I could ride naked and still be safe.

It's not the riding gear that needs sorting - it's what's inside the riders head.
Which, with a doggedly wayward homocidal car and without adequate protection could be there for all to see......:shit:

but....

if you want to be an attgatt fanatic - fine

just don't impose it on me!

[ac3_snow]

9 times out of ten I would ride with atgatt (and always with at least helmet gloves and jacket) but I voted no simply cause I i don't like being told I have to do something!!

[swbarnett]

If ATGATT where compulsory I would have to either stop riding in the hight of summer or ride illegaly. It's just too damn hot most of the time to wear the armoured trou.

[buellbabe]

My 2c.

ATGATT Law.

Absolutely NOT.

I reckon education is a better option. Something like a Pro-Rider course should be compulsory when attaining a motorcycle licence. (I could rant on about the number of shocking riders I have seen on my travels but that is another thread in itself...)


My own personal experience...In the one and only m/c accident I have had that involved hospital treatment and ongoing physio etc plus 6 months off work, wearing ALL the gear from head to toe would have changed absolutely NOTHING.

This is PC bullshit going too far.

Sure, we as riders need to take responsibility for our own mistakes and ride more defensively ...but overwhelmingly (in my opinion) other road users need to turn their bloody stereos down and open their f**king eyes!

[steelphoenix]

How do I convince officer that these jeans are actually motorbike jeans - they are designed not to look like "gear".

Drop your pants? :bleh:


Well

I'm gonna ride naked

with Katman :love:

:shit::blink: Someone tell me when this is so I can hide in my nuclear fallout bunker? Please?


My 2c.

ATGATT Law.

Absolutely NOT.

I reckon education is a better option. Something like a Pro-Rider course should be compulsory when attaining a motorcycle licence. (I could rant on about the number of shocking riders I have seen on my travels but that is another thread in itself...)

[snippy]

Sure, we as riders need to take responsibility for our own mistakes and ride more defensively ...but overwhelmingly (in my opinion) other road users need to turn their bloody stereos down and open their f**king eyes!

This pretty much sums up my opinion on the subject: Education for all!

If you want to ride gearless (or naked, thanks AD :facepalm:), I respect your right to choose - sure, I'll think you're a total dumbshit, but hey, it's your skin, right? (And my ACC money, but let's not quibble about that for a moment).

Only by education can we change choices.

[swbarnett]

If you want to ride gearless ....., it's your skin, right? (And my ACC money...)
Riders in full gear with brain in neutral will cost us far more in ACC on average than riders with no gear and brain engaged.