Euro transport authority questions need for “Motorcycle toys”

[Bob]

The Motorcycle Action Group (MAG) stepped in to defend biking against comments from an EU “expert”. A recent report from the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC), contains the following comments from Norwegian Rune Elvik:

“In Norway, I believe all the most cost effective measures have been implemented – mandatory helmet use, strict licensing, engine tuning ban, daytime running lights for motorbikes. The question that needs to be raised now is whether there should be any place for these motorised toys in the transport system at all.”

The Flemish Parliament in Belgium was presented with the ETSC report as a basis for legislation on motorcycle safety. Thankfully, MAG Belgium – with support from Belgian MPs - were able to successfully defend biking and were able to get their bike-friendly agenda adopted, by using the Federation of European Motorcyclists Associations’ (FEMA), European Agenda for Motorcycle Safety.

MAG’s General Secretary, Trevor Baird, said “Motorcycling is under constant threat from the European safety agenda. The introduction of this agenda has been thwarted in Belgium before it spreads further like a rash across Europe. MAG will continue to protect motorcycling and defend riders’ rights from whatever quarter the threat comes.”

[awayatc]

Scary, hope this doesn't give our do-gooders some ideas....:wacko:

Last year alone 8264 people have been seriously injured falling of staircases. Lets ban multiple storied buildings.:clap:

Life is a sexualy transmitted terminal condition.... lets ban sex....(Would have saved us from Rune Elvik:weird:)

82.07% of the population dies in bed, so we ought to ban beds...or make sleeping illegal.....:Police:

Could somebody lock those sort of people up please, Quickly! before it catches on....look at Sue Bradford....:spanking:

[spookytooth]

Scary,
....look at Sue Bradford....:spanking:[/QUOTE]

you trying to make me chunder ?

[The Stranger]

“In Norway, I believe all the most cost effective measures have been implemented – mandatory helmet use, strict licensing, engine tuning ban, daytime running lights for motorbikes. The question that needs to be raised now is whether there should be any place for these motorised toys in the transport system at all.”


Ok, the thing I don't get is this. Why do these types get so hell bent on trying to save me from me. FFS it's my choice! I know the risks and they should be mine to take.
They haven't thought it through. Imagine if they actually managed to save every unnecessary death on the planet. We'd all die from starvation. So let the one that want to have some fun and kill themselves do so for christs sake.

[davereid]

Ok, the thing I don't get is this. Why do these types get so hell bent on trying to save me from me. FFS it's my choice! I know the risks and they should be mine to take.

Just hang around kiwibiker a bit more.. you will see endless threads started by people concerned they saw a scooter rider without a jacket, or an expired WOF or an endless series of things that worry them senseless.

The idea of "live and let live" has long since been buried by years of safety indoctrination.

My grandkids are riding small motorbikes around the backyard.
I bet they won't see their grandkids on them though. In fact, allowing a child to do something so inherently dangerous would possibly result in you getting a visit from the CYPS-SS.

[James Deuce]

The idea of "live and let live" has long since been buried by years of safety indoctrination.

Don't worry mate, some of us are fighting back.

[ElCoyote]

[QUOTE
Could somebody lock those sort of people up please, Quickly! before it catches on....look at Sue Bradford....:spanking:[/QUOTE]

Did once, still feeling queezy. Took 3 years to get over seeing Uncle Helen on a billboard last election...........oops farce.:banana:

[swbarnett]

Ok, the thing I don't get is this. Why do these types get so hell bent on trying to save me from me.
They actually think they're doing you a favour. The trouble is they are missing the two most important truths about life:

1. My life is exactly that MINE!

2. To "Live" and to "Survive" are not the same thing. They think that just because someone shows all the physiological signs they're alive.

[davereid]

They actually think they're doing you a favour. The trouble is they are missing the two most important truths about life:

1. My life is exactly that MINE!

2. To "Live" and to "Survive" are not the same thing. They think that just because someone shows all the physiological signs they're alive.

You are so right.

But sadly the Nanny state won't admit that you own your life.

It authorises itself to use violence to make sure you are safe, and productive.

Yes, I know that sounds like you are the property of the state, perhaps a slave even. And so are your children.

In the last few years your Nanny-owner has made a few decisions about your rights and obligations.

With due thanks to Peter Creswell who has summarised them:

We may not discipline our children
We may not let them eat tasty food
We must pay for hysterical advertising that treats adults like children
We must not watch advertising that treats us like adults
We may not drive fast cars in industrial areas at night
We may not climb tall ladders
We may not act in ways that Nanny deems "anti-social"
We may not buy vitamins and minerals without a prescription from Nanny
We may not drink alcohol in public places
We may not smoke cigarettes at work or in the pub
We may not smoke marijuana anywhere
We may not ride a bicycle without a helmet
We may not walk a poodle without a muzzle
We may not buy fireworks that go ‘Bang!’
We may not put up bright billboards or sandwich boards around our cities
We may not cut down trees on our own property
We may not repair our own property if Nanny says we can't
We may not plant trees on our own property without Nanny’s approval of the type of tree
We may not paint our houses in colours of which Nanny disapproves
We may not build houses at all where Nanny says we can’t
We may not advertise for young female employees
We may not open for business on days Nanny specifies
If we do open for business, we must act as Nanny's unpaid tax collectors
We may not fire staff who steal from us
We may not fire staff, whatever their employment contract says
We must surrender our children to Nanny’s factory schools
We must pay for teachers that can’t teach and for centres of education that aren’t
We must believe that Alan Bollard knows what he’s doing
We must believe that our money is not our own
We must not call bureaucrats “arseholes”
We must not offend people paid to boss us around with our money
We must answer stupid questions when Nanny asks us
We may not spend our own money in ways of which Nanny disapproves
We may not defend ourselves against people who try to kill us
We must pretend that snails are more important than we are
We must pretend that murderers are people too
We must pretend that totalitarian Islamists do not want us dead, that Castro’s hospitals are not abattoirs, and that Che Guevara was a humanitarian
We must apologise to tribalists for things we didn’t do
We must not offend criminals for things they did do
We must apologise to conservationists for things we need to do
We must apologise for success
We must ignore failure
We may not build new power stations that actually produce real power
We must not offend Gaia by driving big cars and enjoying overseas holidays … unless we’re a cabinet minister
We may not end our own lives when we choose
We must pay for art we don’t like and TV shows we don’t watch
We must pay middle class families to become welfare beneficiaries
We must pay no-hopers to breed

[Manxman]

Scary, hope this doesn't give our do-gooders some ideas....:wacko:

Last year alone 8264 people have been seriously injured falling of staircases. Lets ban multiple storied buildings.:clap:

Life is a sexualy transmitted terminal condition.... lets ban sex....(Would have saved us from Rune Elvik:weird:)

82.07% of the population dies in bed, so we ought to ban beds...or make sleeping illegal.....:Police:

Could somebody lock those sort of people up please, Quickly! before it catches on....look at Sue Bradford....:spanking:

...like your style...but unfortunatley 'tis too late for Sue. I can't wait for one of her, or Labour's ilk, to turn up on my doorstep during this coming election campaign. They won't wtf hit them when I climb into them about all the shite they have foisted upon us in the last wee while, and will be begging to leave (Reverse Jehovah's syndrome).

[dipshit]

FFS it's my choice! I know the risks and they should be mine to take.


With attitudes like this is it any wonder. You are forgetting that it is the state that has to pay for your attitude. In an age where new car safety features eventually become the norm and/or compulsory... motorcycles are practically in the dark ages as far as protection and survivability goes. This is not helped when some motorcyclists choose to not even wear a jacket or sometimes even a helmet. The small number of motorcycles on the road do soak up more than their fear share of money spent on treating road injuries.

So don't act surprised if some lawmakers and bean-counters responsible for road safety one day decide... "fuck it, lets just ban the lot of them".

Idiot motorcyclists will only have themselves to blame.

[scumdog]

I see another mountain climber has been found dead at Mount Cook.

Lets ban mountains........

[Ixion]

We need to ban boats too, because people get drowned, and sometimes boaties don't wear lifejackets and keep themselves clipped to the boat by ropes.

[dipshit]

Get over yourselves. Nobody could give a fuck if you live or die... what they are concerned about is taxpayers money being spent to support your lifestyle.

Nobody needs to climb a mountain. They do it for fun at their own risk. They also don't expect the taxpayer to pay for search and rescue to save their butts from the predicaments they put themselves in.

Boaties and mountaineers can be sent the bill for search and rescue. So yes, they can take the risk but they also pay the price.

[Ocean1]

In the last few years your Nanny-owner has made a few decisions about your rights and obligations.

With due thanks to Peter Creswell who has summarised them:

Nice, cheers.


With attitudes like this is it any wonder. You are forgetting that it is the state that has to pay for your attitude.

Who the fuck asked them to? Some of us are quite prapared to assume financial responsibility for ourselves, how much extra do you suppose we're paying for the damage cause by the "no fault" ACC cover?

[MSTRS]

Get over yourselves.

Good advice. IF it was applied to yourself.
Either you are NannyState, or you have bought the bullshit.
I think you need to sell your bike and use the freed-up funds to buy yourself a huge pile of cottonwool to wrap yourself up in. That way you may be 'safe'. Meantime, the rest of us will enjoy ourselves doing what we love. And fight every attempt to curtail our freedoms.

[macca]

If the argument is to ban bikes cause of injury cost to ACC /taxpayers, then surely you have to ban all sports and recreations that do likelwise. Goodbye rugby cycling etc.... Dumb argument. If the biker can be found guilty of reckless use or similar causing the injury then look to charge them for costs, but this has to be applied across the board, incl cages. Never going to happen.

[Katman]

And fight every attempt to curtail our freedoms.

Is that the same "freedom to ride how ever the fuck I like and who gives a fuck whether my actions piss anyone else off" sort of attitude?

[MSTRS]

Is that the same "freedom to ride how ever the fuck I like and fuck whether my actions piss anyone else off" sort of attitude?

Ah, wondered where you were....
For you, the answer is 'Of course, that's what a real motorcyclist does'. For everyone else, the answer is "If you want to ride like a cock, go get your own private road with no-one else on it"

[Ocean1]

Is that the same "freedom to ride however ever the fuck I like and fuck whether my actions piss anyone else off" sort of attitude?

Dude, some people are pissed off by things that don't affect them in the slightest. It's the "old person's" disease I'm ever vigilent for in my own behaviour.

Sure, if someones behaviour is a significant significant risk to others then we've got a right to respond. I get testy though, when the old lady up the road calls the council every fekin' time she spots some kids on the reserve behind our place doing something she doesn't approve of.

[James Deuce]

I get testy though, when the old lady up the road calls the council every fekin' time she spots some kids on the reserve behind our place doing something she doesn't approve of.

She's lonely, and whining to the Council is probably her only human contact.

[tri boy]

Hence forth, I propose Banning Europeans from UN ZUD, as its obvious that since the EU started to have pow wows, its turned them all into scared, softcocks that should still be on mummy's tit.

Yay, no more condescending know it alls lobbing into our back yard.
Running with sharp knives/scissors, while chewing bubblegum, and dodgy marauding Magpies and wasps IS THE KIWI WAY.:devil2:

[Ocean1]

She's lonely, and whining to the Council is probably her only human contact.

I know her well, and that's not her motive. She just feels indignant about exuberant behaviour, whether it's dangerous or not. Like I said, I'm aware of a similar reaction in myself on occasion, and taken to an extreme I see that path leading to a bitterness about anything at all that might "disturb" one. The template should always be "are they hurting anyone else?" And I don't include an artificial imposed financial cost to others, (like ACC) in that.

So, I will, (and have) pinged kids tearing up the local school football field, but not the ones practicing 3 point turns in the same place. Legally indistinguishable, ethically quite different.

[Ixion]

With attitudes like this is it any wonder. You are forgetting that it is the state that has to pay for your attitude. .

No it's not. Cobblers, in fact. Actually, I pay for the state. A damn sight more than I ever get back from the state, or am ever likely to.

[mstriumph]

Get over yourselves. Nobody could give a fuck if you live or die... what they are concerned about is taxpayers money being spent to support your lifestyle.

Nobody needs to climb a mountain. They do it for fun at their own risk. They also don't expect the taxpayer to pay for search and rescue to save their butts from the predicaments they put themselves in.

Boaties and mountaineers can be sent the bill for search and rescue. So yes, they can take the risk but they also pay the price.

can you tie this opinion back to motorcycles though? ...... i mean boaties and mountaineers etc COULD be sent the bill .... but, over here at least, they never are - it's all taxpayer funded irrespective of whether the participant 'expects' it to be or not?

[Ixion]

It's a different issue anyway. S&R can bill people for rescue operations, but hardly ever do, unless it's a malicious false alarm sort of thing. But, regardless, when the mountaineer is bought back suffering from frostbite, or the boatie from hypothermia, they are never billed for the cost of medical treatment, ACC etc. And there is no legislative provision permitting it.

There would be very few cases indeed where a crashed motorcyclist needed a S&R operation mounted.

[dipshit]

can you tie this opinion back to motorcycles though? ......

These big tough motorcyclists want to ride "however the hell they like", even if this means doing 100 mph wheelies down the motorway... lane splitting and knocking off people's mirrors... 299 kph on public roads... cutting corners whenever they think it's safe... treating public roads like their own private race track so they can get rid of their chicken strips to feel like the hero and so on.

They don't like the idea of the "Nanny State" limiting their fun in any such way. However it is the Nanny State that has to pick them up off the road and fix them up and nurse their broken bodies back to health. This they expect the state to pay for at no extra cost to them.

[yungatart]

These big tough motorcyclists want to ride "however the hell they like", even if this means doing 100 mph wheelies down the motorway... lane splitting and knocking off people's mirrors... 299 kph on public roads... cutting corners whenever they think it's safe... treating public roads like their own private race track so they can get rid of their chicken strips to feel like the hero and so on.

They don't like the idea of the "Nanny State" limiting their fun in any such way. However it is the Nanny State that has to pick them up off the road and fix them up and nurse their broken bodies back to health. This they expect the state to pay for at no extra cost to them.

Aha! Yes, I see...WTF are my taxes for again, if not to mend me when I am broken?

[Ocean1]

:corn::corn::corn:

[dipshit]

Interesting... All from one thread...

*************************************

"Why do these types get so hell bent on trying to save me from me. FFS it's my choice! I know the risks and they should be mine to take."

"But sadly the Nanny state won't admit that you own your life."

"My life is exactly that MINE!"

"Could somebody lock those sort of people up please, Quickly! before it catches on....look at Sue Bradford"


"how much extra do you suppose we're paying for the damage cause by the "no fault" ACC cover?"

"Actually, I pay for the state. A damn sight more than I ever get back from the state, or am ever likely to."

"WTF are my taxes for again, if not to mend me when I am broken?"

******************************************


So can anybody else see the double standard here?

[macca]

Just like the Rugby player, skier, cyclist, skateboarder, and any other participant in physical rec activity you care to mention expect nanny state to fix them up and nurse their broken bodies back to health.... So whats your point - Ban everything except sitting like a sad arse in front of the TV?....

[dipshit]

So whats your point - Ban everything except sitting like a sad arse in front of the TV?....

Governments don't care so much about what we do with our lives... they care about budgets. They are always looking at ways to reduce costs as taxpayers do not have bottomless pockets. This may mean sports clubs need to take out their own insurance policies to cover injuries. The idea has been floated. Search and rescue can send out the bill if a person was particularly negligent and went against the advice of authorities or something.

Likewise motorcyclists that make up 2% of road users and generally soaking up 12% of ACC costs. We shouldn't act surprised if governments think about banning bikes and getting us to drive cars instead. There have been calls in America to ban high-performance street bikes from time to time. Maybe one day they will find a way to make it stick.

What can be done is to realise this - and for all of us to take more responsibility on the roads to reduce our road toll to levels more similar to cars, so we are not seen as some minority target in the eyes of the bean counters.

You follow?

[swbarnett]

However it is the Nanny State that has to pick them up off the road and fix them up and nurse their broken bodies back to health. This they expect the state to pay for at no extra cost to them.
The "Nanny State" doesn't HAVE to do anything. As far as I'm concerned any individual (or government) is quite within their moral rights to leave me bleeding to death on the side of the road if that is their choice. I don't expect any help from anybody. Should I ever need help I will treat the people giving it with the respect they deserve for being (at that moment) very generous, selfless human beings. However, the choice to help me is theirs, not mine. Don't blame me if you can't handle the consequences of your decisions.

[MSTRS]

Interesting...



So can anybody else see the double standard here?

Not that I can see. We live here, we pay taxes for a variety of purposes like it or not, NannyState increasingly chips away at our 'freedoms' (presumeably to ensure we keep living to pay taxes), we moan about things and continue to do what we enjoy.
Should motorcycles be banned because of 'cost to the taxpayer', do you see our taxes being reduced? THAT would be the double standard to which you refer?

[MSTRS]

- and for all of us to take more responsibility on the roads to reduce our road toll to levels more similar to cars

We've had this discussion elsewhere. The stats say that approx half of all motorcycle crashes were primarily caused by a cager, and about 1 third are m/c only.
You'd be better lobbying for stricter driving standards in cagers.

[swbarnett]

Governments don't care so much about what we do with our lives... they care about budgets. They are always looking at ways to reduce costs as taxpayers do not have bottomless pockets. This may mean sports clubs need to take out their own insurance policies to cover injuries.
Compulsory medical insurance. Works well in other countries.


Search and rescue can send out the bill if a person was particularly negligent and went against the advice of authorities or something.
Can't really argue with this as long as it can be clearly defined and agreed where the cut-off point lies (something that I think will be very had if not impossible to do).


Likewise motorcyclists that make up 2% of road users and generally soaking up 12% of ACC costs. We shouldn't act surprised if governments think about banning bikes and getting us to drive cars instead.
Surprised, no. Angry, yes. If they were to apply this logic across the board we'd have less room to complain but as long as smoking is still legal they can leave us the hell alone.


There have been calls in America to ban high-performance street bikes from time to time. Maybe one day they will find a way to make it stick.
The day they do is the day I (and probably many others) change countries.


What can be done is to realise this - and for all of us to take more responsibility on the roads to reduce our road toll to levels more similar to cars, so we are not seen as some minority target in the eyes of the bean counters.
I don't think that our road toll is that much different to cars in terms of number of serious accidents (can anyone confirm this?). The disproportinate cost comes from the fact that the consequences are greater because of the lower level of protection (which is also why so many of us enjoy riding so much). Until you start building roll cages for motorcycles (which I doubt many of us would stand for) this isn't going to change.


You follow?
I think most of understand your logic. We just don't accept that anyone has the right to foist bad science on us and call it a safety measure.

[Ocean1]

So can anybody else see the double standard here?

No. We don't have a choice whether to pay government imposed fees. If we did I'd be paying twice as much for a service 4 times better. And I still wouldn't bitch about those who choose to do otherwise, it's their choice to make, not mine and not the state's.


Not that I can see. We live here, we pay taxes for a variety of purposes like it or not, NannyState increasingly chips away at our 'freedoms' (presumeably to ensure we keep living to pay taxes), we moan about things and continue to do what we enjoy.
Should motorcycles be banned because of 'cost to the taxpayer', do you see our taxes being reduced? THAT would be the double standard to which you refer?

+1

[davereid]

However it is the Nanny State that has to pick them up off the road and fix them up and nurse their broken bodies back to health. This they expect the state to pay for at no extra cost to them.

No. I don't expect the state to do anything for me, and I don't believe I have any obligation to the state.

However, Nanny has decided that I will pay for ACC via my income tax, my fuel levy, and my rego.

So I feel absolutely entitled to use it.

Trouble for Nanny is, now she has promised (even though I never wanted it) to patch me up, she now feels the pinch in the wallet every time I hurt myself.

So that means, she thinks she has the right to tell me what to do.

I don't agree, but she has the guns to make sure its done her way.

But here the bit I do like.

Even if I don't pay my rego, I'm covered.
Even if I'm pissed, doing something illegal or committing a crime I'm covered.

So, while I hate ACC on principle, as a piss poor driver, a shocking user of safety equipment, and generally an ignorer of Nannys rules I love it !

So its great. I can (usually do) ignore the rules, and I'm still covered.

My driving history makes me un-insurable. But Nanny great ACC is there for me even when I don't pay the rego.

[swbarnett]

It occurrs to me that if you were to ban motorcycles just becaure they are used in preference to a cage purely for pleasure (this is not true for every body anyway, some are just for economy) then you have to ban everything else that is also just for pleasure.

You would have to close all the restaurants to prevent food poisoning. Hell, why do we eat tasty food at all. Some bland concoction pumped full of antibiotics and preservatives should keep your body alive.

You would have to close all the hotels to prevent unnesessary dangerous travel by whatever means. Afterall, aren't holidays as unnecessary as motorcycles?

The list continues... Pretty soon we'll only be allowed to work and sleep.

[James Deuce]

I don't think that our road toll is that much different to cars in terms of number of serious accidents (can anyone confirm this?). The disproportinate cost comes from the fact that the consequences are greater because of the lower level of protection (which is also why so many of us enjoy riding so much).


You're right about consequence, but unfortunately our accident rate is much higher per vehicle type and road user than any other road user group. We have much higher single vehicle accident rates too. We are the architects of our own demise, and until you all accept that and stop riding so hard that your only options are crash or miracle, we are fucked at some point in the short-medium future.

http://www.stats.govt.nz

[James Deuce]

Just like the Rugby player, skier, cyclist, skateboarder, and any other participant in physical rec activity you care to mention expect nanny state to fix them up and nurse their broken bodies back to health.... So whats your point - Ban everything except sitting like a sad arse in front of the TV?....

If it doesn't have an engine and therefore a neon lit carbon footprint, it is classified as acceptable human endeavour. Lets not discuss the carbon footprint inherent in a lot of the high tech aids for these specialised sports.

We're regarded as hoons and use vehicles (all the post-peak oil production petrol gone - Nooooooooo) for pleasure at a time when we should all be using public transport and leaving the car at home, only using it to visit Aunty Mabel on weekends, provided we drive the 80 kms at 60 km/hr and carry a minimum of 16 passengers..

[dipshit]

And at the same time car technology and safety features increase, ( http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/vehicles/esc.html ) while motorcycle survivability remains in the dark ages by comparison.

If motorcyclists keep on with the carnage like we are today, then there is a very real possibility that the authorities will decide to do something about it.

And I would be majorly pissed off about that. However I would not be surprised or blame the lawmakers. It would be idiot and irresponsible motorcyclists that couldn't see this coming that I would be pissed at.

[dipshit]

Surprised, no. Angry, yes. If they were to apply this logic across the board we'd have less room to complain but as long as smoking is still legal they can leave us the hell alone.

Why do you think they are running the public health system into the ground? If you have to wait a couple of years to even get on a waiting list... this is making paying out of your own pocket to go for private healthcare a no-brainer.

[swbarnett]

You're right about consequence, but unfortunately our accident rate is much higher per vehicle type and road user than any other road user group.
Thanks for the clarification.

On further thought it makes sense that our accident rate would be higher. Where a cage will skid to a stop even sideways it would take a very skilled rider indeed to emulate that on a bike.

I wonder how things would stack up if you only considered skilled drivers and riders and forgot about the lowest common denominator for a moment?


If it doesn't have an engine and therefore a neon lit carbon footprint, it is classified as acceptable human endeavour.
My carbon footprint is far lower since I got back on a bike as I use it almost exclusively. The cage just sits in the garage for use when carrying large items (usually the sea kayaks).

Also, if the government actively encouraged motorcycle use the carbon footprint of the overall vehicle fleet could be reduced dramatically.


We're regarded as hoons and use vehicles (all the post-peak oil production petrol gone - Nooooooooo) for pleasure at a time when we should all be using public transport and leaving the car at home, only using it to visit Aunty Mabel on weekends, provided we drive the 80 kms at 60 km/hr and carry a minimum of 16 passengers..
Yes, I ride for pleasure. However, a large proportion of the kms that I travel are for commuting (which is now pleasurable and stress reducing; the exact opposite of the cage).

It has also been argued that a motorcycle fleet makes for very good public transport. You go where you want, when you want using only the fuel that you need whereas a bus or train will take you to the general area only at a preset time not of your choosing (and often not as stated in the timetable) using the fuel required to shift it's entire bulk whether there are passengers or not.

[Ocean1]

I would not be surprised or blame the lawmakers. It would be idiot and irresponsible motorcyclists that couldn't see this coming that I would be pissed at.

How can you claim to be responsible for you own behaviour and then blame others for making you change it? Dude that reeks of double-think. If they do ban bikes from the roads it'll be "for our own good", and I won't be blaming anyone other than the fuckwits that made the cost of my behavour their business.


Why do you think they are running the public health system into the ground? If you have to wait a couple of years to even get on a waiting list... this is making paying out of your own pocket to go for private healthcare a no-brainer.

At no time in the last decade has the health budget decreased, quite the reverse. You've got no idea what you're talking about.

[swbarnett]

Why do you think they are running the public health system into the ground? If you have to wait a couple of years to even get on a waiting list... this is making paying out of your own pocket to go for private healthcare a no-brainer.
No argument there. I just get pissed off when one group is singled out for abuse while others where the carnage is much more black and white are ignored.

And before anyone jumps on me I don't want to ban smoking. What you do to your own lungs is no business of mine.

[swbarnett]

If motorcyclists keep on with the carnage like we are today, then there is a very real possibility that the authorities will decide to do something about it.

And I would be majorly pissed off about that.
Here we are most definately in agreement. If some beaurecrat tries to take my bike away they had better come prepared.


However I would not be surprised or blame the lawmakers. It would be idiot and irresponsible motorcyclists that couldn't see this coming that I would be pissed at.
While I see your point that yes, as a group, we can be our own worst enemy, the BLAME will always lie with the assaliant, not the victim. I would blame the lawmakers for being selfish, short sighted and blind to the consequences of their actions.

[Ocean1]

And before anyone jumps on me I don't want to ban smoking. What you do to your own lungs is no business of mine.

Actually, I would support a ban on tobacco sales, and that's not necessarily at odds with my general preference to be left alone to make my own choices. It's the single most addictive substance around, and that removes enough of the element of choice to make it a fair target, (for me), for state control.

[MSTRS]

I would blame the lawmakers for being selfish, short sighted and blind to the consequences of their actions.

Which leads me to comment that in order to save tax dollars, the penny pinching must stop. At least in regards to what goes on and into our roading network. A properly made road, using the best materials and safety features is a delight for all, needs no remedial action for years, and will help avoid much of the current costs incurred through "accidents".
Mind you, nothing can stop the idiots. Except Darwin. Or Katman.

[Katman]

Mind you, nothing can stop the idiots. Except Darwin. Or Katman.

I know that probably wasn't meant as a compliment - but I'm going to take it as one anyway.:msn-wink:

[macca]

Regardless of what the majority of us do, the media will pick the flavour of story that appeals to them and their wallets when reporting accidents. And their interpretation and slant is hardly unbiased.

And Politicians will go with the easy un-PC target every time.

Of course when they do get the anti bike media frenzy going, if we dont stand up for ourselves as a group we really will have only ourselves to blame....

[WelshWizard]

You are so right.

But sadly the Nanny state won't admit that you own your life.

It authorises itself to use violence to make sure you are safe, and productive.

Yes, I know that sounds like you are the property of the state, perhaps a slave even. And so are your children.

In the last few years your Nanny-owner has made a few decisions about your rights and obligations.

With due thanks to Peter Creswell who has summarised them:

We may not discipline our children
We may not let them eat tasty food
We must pay for hysterical advertising that treats adults like children
We must not watch advertising that treats us like adults
We may not drive fast cars in industrial areas at night
We may not climb tall ladders
We may not act in ways that Nanny deems "anti-social"
We may not buy vitamins and minerals without a prescription from Nanny
We may not drink alcohol in public places
We may not smoke cigarettes at work or in the pub
We may not smoke marijuana anywhere
We may not ride a bicycle without a helmet
We may not walk a poodle without a muzzle
We may not buy fireworks that go ‘Bang!’
We may not put up bright billboards or sandwich boards around our cities
We may not cut down trees on our own property
We may not repair our own property if Nanny says we can't
We may not plant trees on our own property without Nanny’s approval of the type of tree
We may not paint our houses in colours of which Nanny disapproves
We may not build houses at all where Nanny says we can’t
We may not advertise for young female employees
We may not open for business on days Nanny specifies
If we do open for business, we must act as Nanny's unpaid tax collectors
We may not fire staff who steal from us
We may not fire staff, whatever their employment contract says
We must surrender our children to Nanny’s factory schools
We must pay for teachers that can’t teach and for centres of education that aren’t
We must believe that Alan Bollard knows what he’s doing
We must believe that our money is not our own
We must not call bureaucrats “arseholes”
We must not offend people paid to boss us around with our money
We must answer stupid questions when Nanny asks us
We may not spend our own money in ways of which Nanny disapproves
We may not defend ourselves against people who try to kill us
We must pretend that snails are more important than we are
We must pretend that murderers are people too
We must pretend that totalitarian Islamists do not want us dead, that Castro’s hospitals are not abattoirs, and that Che Guevara was a humanitarian
We must apologise to tribalists for things we didn’t do
We must not offend criminals for things they did do
We must apologise to conservationists for things we need to do
We must apologise for success
We must ignore failure
We may not build new power stations that actually produce real power
We must not offend Gaia by driving big cars and enjoying overseas holidays … unless we’re a cabinet minister
We may not end our own lives when we choose
We must pay for art we don’t like and TV shows we don’t watch
We must pay middle class families to become welfare beneficiaries
We must pay no-hopers to breed


Just part of the list that will lead to Joe Bloggs saying enough is enough and then the revolution will start, people will take so much sh!t then in the end they will kick back, normally when it's so late that the revolution will end up like the War of Independance in the Americas

[MSTRS]

Just part of the list that will lead to Joe Bloggs saying enough is enough and then the revolution will start, people will take so much sh!t then in the end they will kick back, normally when it's so late that the revolution will end up like the War of Independance in the Americas

I hope you are not suggesting that we start shooting pollies?:nono: Mind you, after 5 or 6 (20+?), the rest might start listening for real...

[WelshWizard]

I hope you are not suggesting that we start shooting pollies?:nono: Mind you, after 5 or 6 (20+?), the rest might start listening for real...

I don't have to suggest anything, look through history, people will only take so much before they kick back ;)

[MSTRS]

Correct, WW. And looking at history, what we learn is that we don't learn from history. Those that 'know best' keep right on with their bullshit in an attempt to control their subjects/human behaviour through force of some sort, until the only path open to the affected is...adamant resistance.

[dipshit]

:tugger:





..................

[swbarnett]

:tugger:





..................

Now that's intelligent....

[dipshit]

Now that's intelligent....

Thank you. I thought it summed up the last few posts in this thread quite nicely.

[swbarnett]

Thank you. I thought it summed up the last few posts in this thread quite nicely.
My father-in-law would use that kind of retort when he knew he'd lost an argument.

[mstriumph]

Not that I can see. We live here, we pay taxes for a variety of purposes like it or not, NannyState increasingly chips away at our 'freedoms' (presumeably to ensure we keep living to pay taxes),...........

ahHA yes!! i see it all now!!

only LIVE taxpayers can continue to be bled for $$$ to replenish the public purse ..... so theoretically a dead motorcyclist is no use to the state .....

no WONDER there's so much cotton wool being wrapped around us!! :shutup:

[Sanx]

Dipshit. 'Nuff said.

Moving on...

Various groups within the EU have been trying to restrict or ban motorcycles for years. One particular French MEP kept on introducing legislation to the European Parliament limiting bikes to 100hp - which kept on being defeated. Other legislative manouvers have included making engine modifications illegal (defeated), having engines sealed so that only registered dealerships could work on them (defeated), make catalytic converters compulsory (passed), make changing exhausts illegal (defeated) and a few others.

For the most part, such utter silliness has been ignored. There will always be pressure groups within individual countries and acros the EU as a whole who have an axe to grind. The UK-based speed-is-the-cause-of-all-evil group BRAKE in partcular have called for power and speed limits on motorcycles, the most recent of which actually called for them to be limited to 65mph, 5mph under the national motorway speed limit. This was done in conjunction with a few other such nutty groups, including some cyclists' lobby in London. For the most part, they're just ignored. Just because some random Norwiegan has had comments published in a European Transport Safety document does not mean it's being put forward; in fact, precisely the opposite. Such documents are used to canvas a range the views and they're designed to put a balanced viewpoint across. And that includes viewpoints that we, as motorcyclists, find ridiculous.

[dipshit]

If you think it's just a few bunch of nuts, then think again...

http://tribes.tribe.net/452dda20-f1e1-4248-b2d0-5ddab84875cc/thread/ce682a0a-e6fe-46f1-b517-6ed9fca746b3

[dipshit]

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=1362188&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=3.1.1

[MSTRS]

"It's a small percentage of miscreants causing all the problems..."
So what's new?

[swbarnett]

"It's a small percentage of miscreants causing all the problems..."
So what's new?
And of course the majority of the rest of the population (or at least those in power) don't know the difference between the minority and the majority aka "Squeaky wheel syndrome".

[davereid]

Its much simpler I think. All that happens is "people who know better than me" use the "public benefit" justification to ban something "really dangerous".

Next year, the really dangerous thing has been banned - guess what. Something else is now the next most dangerous thing. So we ban that too..

The clever thing is, those who lived before the ban think they all suck.

But, it easy to convince those that came since it that it was a good idea.

So
-First we just rode motorcycles.
- Then we needed registration
- Then we needed a licence
- Then we banned riding without a helmet.
-Then we introduce different licence classes and restrict CC ratings for learners
- Then we make headlights compulsory
- Then we make flouro jackets compulsory
- Then we restrict power for all bikes
- Then we restrict it again
- and again
- then we just ban them

Job done.


Those that 'know best' keep right on with their bullshit in an attempt to control their subjects/human behaviour through force of some sort, until the only path open to the affected is...adamant resistance.

Yes.. poisoning the well..

A true human tradition since the world became so small that you could no longer just find a place that had no one to torment you.

Its just natures way of exploring the best and worst that our genes can provide.

Adults will always want to control, regardless of logic or justification.
The next generation will choose to push the boundaries.
In the animal world, the young just leave, to start their own world.

But humans are too clever. We will follow those who rebel and punish them, regardless of the cost required to do it.

So we are the only species where the young will deliberately rebel, and use force to destroy the tribe. The ancients called it "poisoning the well".

They couldn't understand why some of their young people would choose to destroy their own society. The more force they used, the worse the problem became.

We see it today. We control more and more and more. But we can't understand drug use, boy racers, or school yard shootings.

Luckily, we understand history, so we make more rules, and give the cops more power. That will sort it!

[James Deuce]

Luckily, we understand history, so we make more rules, and give the cops more power. That will sort it!

I was with you until you said that.

We document it. A few read it, fewer understand, fewer still possess the willpower to avoid past mistakes, and a powerful, rich minority use its lessons to impose ignorance and repeat patterns of exploitation ad infinitum.

Me, I'm still pissed that Santa and the Easter Bunny don't exist.

[Ocean1]

I was with you until you said that.

Ditto. Sarcasm, I suspect. State authoritarianism has never reigned in adolescent excess before, and it won't now, it's too blunt a tool.

I'd be interested to hear some input from a social historian. Seems to me that the gradual creeping accumulation of regulatory legislation is never overcome short of complete civil collapse. If that's the price of freedom then better it were early than late, while there's some alive who still know how to survive.


We document it. A few read it, fewer understand, fewer still possess the willpower to avoid past mistakes, and a powerful, rich minority use its lessons to impose ignorance and repeat patterns of exploitation ad infinitum.

Me, I'm still pissed that Santa and the Easter Bunny don't exist.

I don't necessarily think that the rich and powerful become that way by suppressing history or knowledge in general, in my experience they're simply more aggressive and acquisitive. That sometimes means they're exploitative, but it’s not an exclusive trait, losers are just as likely to exploit others.

Re Easter Bunny: Alive and well and living at Hugh's place. :niceone:

[WelshWizard]

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=1362188&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=3.1.1

20 years ago it was a small band of people calling for a ban on smoking, probably 90% of people smoked, now look at that small band
less than 50% smoking , smoking bannned in workplace,bars , cafes, Clubs, and now they want it banned in your own home, minority today, majority tommorrow :(

[dipshit]

"It's a small percentage of miscreants causing all the problems..."
So what's new?

Nothing new. That's what I have been saying all along. It's always a case of a few idiots and wankers that ruin things for everybody else.

And it is those people (your fellow motorcyclists who think they can ride however the fuck they like and others can just go fuck themselves as it is my life blah blah blah..) that you should blame if we get tighter restrictions placed on us. You see, their big tough he-man wanker attitude fails to realise that their actions do have consequences for others as well.

[davereid]

Nothing new. That's what I have been saying all along. It's always a case of a few idiots and wankers that ruin things for everybody else.

And it is those people (your fellow motorcyclists who think they can ride however the fuck they like and others can just go fuck themselves as it is my life blah blah blah..) that you should blame if we get tighter restrictions placed on us. You see, their big tough he-man wanker attitude fails to realise that their actions do have consequences for others as well.

No, it would be nice if it were that simple.

Then we could have just stopped worrying about losing our motocycles when we got helmets forced on us.

The reality is that once a rule becomes accepted, then the next tightening of the noose can be proposed.

Same with the smoking thing.
1907.
Tobacco, Pot and Opium were legal anywere, any time.
Opium restricted.
Pot restricted.
Tobacco age restricted.
Tobacco banned in Governmemt Buildings.
Tobacco banned in the workplace.
Tobacco Banned in Privately owned buildings is alcohol or food served.
2007
Tobacco banned in cars next.
Tobacco banned in any public place next.
Tobacco banned in private homes if children live in the same house.
Tobacco banned.

Didn't happen because people smoked carelessly, smoked too fast or didn't use filters.

Happened because smoking, (Like Motor-Cycling) has inherent dangers.
Its the old story repeating itself.

The reality is, that even using all the safety gear, and following the manufacturers instructions to the letter, the enjoyment gained by smoking comes with a good degree of risk to the user, and others.

Same with motorcycles.

[Katman]

Nothing new. That's what I have been saying all along. It's always a case of a few idiots and wankers that ruin things for everybody else.

And it is those people (your fellow motorcyclists who think they can ride however the fuck they like and others can just go fuck themselves as it is my life blah blah blah..) that you should blame if we get tighter restrictions placed on us. You see, their big tough he-man wanker attitude fails to realise that their actions do have consequences for others as well.

I'm 100% with dipshit on this (not that that would come as any surprise to most:msn-wink:).

My only confusion lies with the fact that, if it's such a small minority spoiling it for the rest of us how come my forehead is bleeding so profusely?:brick:

:msn-wink:

[Ocean1]

And it is those people (your fellow motorcyclists who think they can ride however the fuck they like and others can just go fuck themselves as it is my life blah blah blah..) that you should blame if we get tighter restrictions placed on us.

Utter bollox. There are existing regulations to control riding behaviour, reasonably stringent ones at that. The fact that some regurlarly and routinely ignore them speaks volumes as to how effective they are. More and tighter regulation won't make a bit of difference to that behaviour, and the authorities know that as well as we do. So what's the justification?

Ready... fire... AIM. It's the same fuckin' story with every social issue. When legislation gets too restrictive an increasing majority simply ignores it, you just end up making everyone criminals in the name of a pedantic ideal. Far better to have a set of rules that the majority agree with and ping the fuck out of transgressors.

[swbarnett]

And it is those people (your fellow motorcyclists who think they can ride however the fuck they like and others can just go fuck themselves as it is my life blah blah blah..) that you should blame if we get tighter restrictions placed on us.
Sorry, I blame two groups - the idiots imposing restrictions to suit their own agenda regardless of the flawed logic they use and the silent majority that just bends over.

If the idiots riding like Rossi on public roads with scant regard for their fellow road users did pull their heads in the beaurocrats would just focus on the next less dangerous activity. Pretty soon crossing the street would be banned and foot bridges would become mandatory.

[Katman]

If the idiots riding like Rossi on public roads with scant regard for their fellow road users did pull their heads in the beaurocrats would just focus on the next less dangerous activity. Pretty soon crossing the street would be banned and foot bridges would become mandatory.

So what are you suggesting????? That we just ignore the fuckwits out there and let the government come down hard on us because they're going to regardless????? What sort of fucked up logic is that?

[MSTRS]

So what are you suggesting????? That we just ignore the fuckwits out there and let the government come down hard on us because they're going to regardless????? What sort of fucked up logic is that?

FFS!!! He is saying that do-gooders in positions of influence will focus their agenda(s) on whatever takes their eye as to how 'dangerous' it is and enact 'solutions' to minimise the so-called problem.
Have you ridden Dome Valley? Recently changed to an 80kph limit and cheesecutter installed on the outside of righthand carves. The equivalent would be the Napier-Taupo being reduced to 70kph from the cafe at the end of the plains to the beginning of the Esk Valley below Glengarry, and then 80kph from there to the SH2 junction.

[dipshit]

Utter bollox. There are existing regulations to control riding behaviour, reasonably stringent ones at that. The fact that some regurlarly and routinely ignore them speaks volumes as to how effective they are. More and tighter regulation won't make a bit of difference to that behaviour, and the authorities know that as well as we do. So what's the justification?

Right, as many motorcyclists like to see themselves as nonconforming modern-day cowboys, what you say is quite true.

Yet everyone here is acting surprised and shocked when the authorities say things like...

"the IIHS had a far simpler solution to the “problem” of motorcycle safety. Its senior vice president, Ben Kelley, suggested that one answer would be to just ban motorcycles outright. There—problem solved."


http://tribes.tribe.net/452dda20-f1e1-4248-b2d0-5ddab84875cc/thread/ce682a0a-e6fe-46f1-b517-6ed9fca746b3

:weird:

[dipshit]

Have you ridden Dome Valley? Recently changed to an 80kph limit and cheesecutter installed on the outside of righthand carves.

And what was the *reason* they did that? *What* cause these measures to be put in place..???

[yungatart]

And what was the *reason* they did that? *What* cause these measures to be put in place..???

Because it is easier to impose a silly speed limit than educate people to drive properly!

[rwh]

Yet everyone here is acting surprised and shocked when the authorities say things like...

"the IIHS had a far simpler solution to the “problem” of motorcycle safety. Its senior vice president, Ben Kelley, suggested that one answer would be to just ban motorcycles outright. There—problem solved."


http://tribes.tribe.net/452dda20-f1e1-4248-b2d0-5ddab84875cc/thread/ce682a0a-e6fe-46f1-b517-6ed9fca746b3


Um - I read that earlier. If I remember correctly, neither the author of the article nor the IIHS is an 'authority' - one is an online newspaper thingy, and the other is a bunch of insurance companies (which the right-wing majority of KBers will no doubt insist be allowed to do whatever they like, in the interests of the market).

I'm not sure why the insurance companies care whether bikes are legal or not, to be honest - surely they can just refuse to insure them regardless, if that's in their best interest.

Richard

[dipshit]

Um - I read that earlier. If I remember correctly, neither the author of the article nor the IIHS is an 'authority' - one is an online newspaper thingy, and the other is a bunch of insurance companies


http://www.iihs.org/about.html

Believe it or not, it is organisations like this that have more influence on the motor industry and road safety than the usually clueless politicians that come and go every few years.

[swbarnett]

So what are you suggesting????? That we just ignore the fuckwits out there
To some degree yes.


and let the government come down hard on us because they're going to regardless?????
No. We have to fight for our rights regardless of the extremes.

While I agree with you that some riders are in extreme cases, as you say "fuckwits", they are not the root problem. No matter how safe society is there will always be some that say the "most dangerous" activities currently undertaken should be banned. If we get to the point where the only possible injury in our daily lives is a paper cut there will be those that will try to ban paper.

The root cause is the interaction (or lack of it) between those that try to make us completely safe (government) and those on the other side (us) who should be yelling at the top of their lungs "don't make us any safer, we're happy with the way things are!". In essence, if we get restrictions we're not happy with we've only got ourselves to blame for not standing up for ourselves.

There will always be "fuckwits". Not because what they do is that dangerous in an absolute sense but because what they do is "more" dangerous than what the rest of us get up to. Remove the current "fuckwits" and we're next on the list.

[swbarnett]

And what was the *reason* they did that? *What* cause these measures to be put in place..???
Idiots in power that don't have a clue what they're talking about and a docile public that just sits back and takes it.

Where's the protest blocking the road until the limit is raised again?

[Katman]

Where's the protest blocking the road until the limit is raised again?

Mate, you belong back in the 60's with flowers in your hair.:msn-wink:

[MSTRS]

In essence, if we get restrictions we're not happy with we've only got ourselves to blame for not standing up for ourselves.



Did we not remember the 'anti-smacking bill'?? Sometimes, no matter how loud the protest, or how big a section of society is protesting, shit like this still gets the nod.

[dipshit]

No. We have to fight for our rights regardless of the extremes.


What? Like some KB "protest ride" with some dickheads pulling wheelies and stoppies in front of the cameras..?? Yaeh that will show them!

:rofl:

[swbarnett]

Did we not remember the 'anti-smacking bill'?? Sometimes, no matter how loud the protest, or how big a section of society is protesting, shit like this still gets the nod.
Unfortunately this is true.

However, if any given group feels strongly enough about an issue things change. I'm not saying we're there yet (a long way off I hope) but there will come a time when a revolution of some kind will be necessary.

Crap gets through because we don't have a constitution and referenda are not legally binding on the government. There will come a time when a group of people feels strongly enough to, by force of arms, sit our leaders down around a table and force them to change this untenable situation. If I remember rightly the Magna carta was signed under duress.

The problem we have in NZ is that we're divided. Noone will stand up and take the first step because we know all too well that the rest of the population won't follow.

[swbarnett]

What? Like some KB "protest ride" with some dickheads pulling wheelies and stoppies in front of the cameras..?? Yaeh that will show them!

:rofl:
I agree that a protest ride only serves to get the point across that we're not happy (and maybe not even that). Alone it will do nothing to change the situation. Why are we not staging a sit in next time they try to install the cheese cutters and get the publicity of a few hundred arrests? The answer is simple - we're all soft (myself included). We don't have the balls to stand up for what we believe in.

[MSTRS]

What? Like some KB "protest ride" with some dickheads pulling wheelies and stoppies in front of the cameras..?? Yaeh that will show them!

:rofl:

I haven't seen you even try to do something helpful and honourable for all. Just where do you think you get off, pointing and laughing at those that have tried to make a point?

[Katman]

I haven't seen you even try to do something helpful and honourable for all. Just where do you think you get off, pointing and laughing at those that have tried to make a point?

I was there MSTRS. I'll point and laugh.

[yungatart]

Good for you!
What have you done since? Apart from preaching on here, I mean.

[davereid]

Right, as many motorcyclists like to see themselves as nonconforming modern-day cowboys, what you say is quite true.

Yet everyone here is acting surprised and shocked when the authorities say things like...

"the IIHS had a far simpler solution to the “problem” of motorcycle safety. Its senior vice president, Ben Kelley, suggested that one answer would be to just ban motorcycles outright. There—problem solved."


No. Quite the reverse.

No one is surprised ! We expect it !

You just can't seem to accept the idea that governments ENJOY governing.

The process of making rules for others to follow is something that some people enjoy.

You assume that lawmaking is done to make our lives better. History would suggest that there is a problem with that.

You see, "Ben Kelley" sees motorcycling as a problem, ie accidents, that need solving. If you assume that government aka "the public good" is the defining motive for human endeavor then you are right.

But I don't.

I think MY LIFE has precedence over the public good, as long as I don't endanger others.

(And by the way, telling me I'm going to join ACC, will pay for it regardless of my own views, and therefore need to be good in case I cost "society" money, doesn't count.)

You assume that if you just do everything that Helen has invented by 2008, that the problem ends.

Sorry Dipshit, they will be there again. And they will find things to ban.

[swbarnett]

I think MY LIFE has precedence over the public good, as long as I don't endanger others.
Even better than that, you running your own life as you see fit (with respect for other's right to do the same) is in the public interest. All lives are enriched by it.

[Pixie]

They actually think they're doing you a favour. The trouble is they are missing the two most important truths about life:

1. My life is exactly that MINE!

2. To "Live" and to "Survive" are not the same thing. They think that just because someone shows all the physiological signs they're alive.

In earlier times that type would become missionaries and go off to spoil the fun of some happy natives:

Q'Toktok: Are you enjoying your ox testicle?
Homer: Oh, yes -- very much so.
Q'Toktok: Really? You sure you wouldn't rather have a
coconut? [chuckles] They're delicious.
Homer: No, I'm good. [slurps happily. Q'Toktok and Ak
look at each other and shrug]
[Homer sees two attractive sarong-wearing women walk
by]
Hey, what happened to all the shirtless girls you
see in all the geographical magazines?
Q'Toktok: Craig and Amy gave us the gift of shame. All the
naked women are on that island. [points to a
distant island]
Ak: Yeah, anything goes over there. Bouncy, bouncy!
Homer: Aw.

[Pixie]

Governments don't care so much about what we do with our lives... they care about budgets. They are always looking at ways to reduce costs as taxpayers do not have bottomless pockets.

Bullshit
Two words: Budget surplus

How many billion?

[Pixie]

No, it would be nice if it were that simple.

Then we could have just stopped worrying about losing our motocycles when we got helmets forced on us.

The reality is that once a rule becomes accepted, then the next tightening of the noose can be proposed.

Same with the smoking thing.
1907.
Tobacco, Pot and Opium were legal anywere, any time.
Opium restricted.
Pot restricted.
Tobacco age restricted.
Tobacco banned in Governmemt Buildings.
Tobacco banned in the workplace.
Tobacco Banned in Privately owned buildings is alcohol or food served.
2007
Tobacco banned in cars next.
Tobacco banned in any public place next.
Tobacco banned in private homes if children live in the same house.
Tobacco banned.

Didn't happen because people smoked carelessly, smoked too fast or didn't use filters.

Happened because smoking, (Like Motor-Cycling) has inherent dangers.
Its the old story repeating itself.

The reality is, that even using all the safety gear, and following the manufacturers instructions to the letter, the enjoyment gained by smoking comes with a good degree of risk to the user, and others.

Same with motorcycles.

An interesting observation by some social anthropologists is that the more society tries to make life 100% safe,the more extreme sports gain popularity.
Risk taking is what caused modern humans to evolve.

[RDJ]

Get over yourselves. Nobody could give a fuck if you live or die... what they are concerned about is taxpayers money being spent to support your lifestyle.

Nobody needs to climb a mountain. They do it for fun at their own risk. They also don't expect the taxpayer to pay for search and rescue to save their butts from the predicaments they put themselves in.

Boaties and mountaineers can be sent the bill for search and rescue. So yes, they can take the risk but they also pay the price.

Ah - that does not happen. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs to the New Zealand taxpayer (and taxpayers around the world) are spent and never recovered when lone yachties call for help at sea - or when groups of them get into trouble during ocean races. And yes, mountain climbers do expect search and rescue.

Furthermore, since bikers have no choice about our tax money being spent to support various other lifestyles, bikers are fairly reasonably concerned when other people decide to single out motorcyclists as people who do not "deserve" to consume any of the taxes we paid.