Why don't folks wear gloves when they're riding? [Archive]

mv.senna

17th January 2008, 21:54

...any ideas from you lot? :spudwhat:

as riders, our ACC levies are massive because of the cost of our injuries. We know we can do fk all to protect ourselves from useless car drivers, but we can minimise the severity of our injuries by wearing riding gear...

Curiously tho, I've seen a lot of riders out and about all over the country-side, fully geared up - but no gloves??!! what the??

Since generally, hands tend to get v.munted vs tarseal at even low speeds (below 50km) why is it that folks choose to ride without gloves? is it a cost thing? is it a she'll be right thing? :slap:

same deal with open-face helmets...does anyone else think these should be banned too!! face vs tarseal....ouch!! :crazy:

(...and don't get me started on the scooter commuting office folks, in their protective skirts and manolo blahnik's for the girls, or safety cargo shorts n jandals for the boys...):weird:

anyway, will be interested to hear what you lot think.:not:

crashe

17th January 2008, 22:22

same deal with open-face helmets...does anyone else think these should be banned too!! face vs tarseal....ouch!! :crazy:

I have a friend who is clostrophobic (sp) and cant stand to wear a full face helmet.... so they wear a open face helmet with a visor.
Are you saying that they shouldn't be riding their bike at all, when they love riding?

I have another friend who wont even go pillion now due to her suffering with clostrophobic (sp) to even wearing a open face helmet... she used to always go on the back of her hubby's bike..... but over the years the phobia has got so bad......
If there was a way where she could get an excemption to never wear a helmet then she would go pillion again..... but since there is no excemption, she waves him off as he goes for a ride.

Ixion

17th January 2008, 22:32

..

same deal with open-face helmets...does anyone else think these should be banned too!! face vs tarseal....ouch!! :crazy:

An excellent idea. But a much better one would be to ban all those dreadful noisy "sportbike" motorcycles that those people race around on.

My friend Doris was innocently minding her own business, going along the road (and she's a VERY careful driver, never goes over 70kph), and one of those dreadful things raced by her at an absolutely suicidal speed. She never even saw it coming (admittedly, she does hang her handbag on the rear view mirror thing, which obscures it a tiny bit. But the motorcyclist was speeding anyway, they always do). She was so upset that she had to stop at my place for a nice cup of tea and a wee lie down.

The sooner those dangerous and antisocial toys are banned the better for everyone, including the riders, Why should I have to pay taxes and ACC to patch them up when they injure themselves?

Still banning their helmets is a good start, and once we start banning things we can easily extend it.

T.W.R

17th January 2008, 22:38

Because they think this will never happen :doh:

As for helmets check the 2nd pic

And my pet hate total lack of protective gear :weird: got a local down here that consistantly over the last few weeks travels the main south (SH1) in a T-shirt, shorts & sneakers, even had his daughter on the back the other day dressed the same, no protective gear apart from helmets :oi-grr:

scumdog

17th January 2008, 22:43

I wear what I wear.

But only ride without gloves when puttering around the paddock at a motor-bike rally.

Bren

17th January 2008, 23:00

you can ban this and that and the other thing as much as ya want BUT there is one thing you can never ban...and that is the Idiot Factor.
For example Fireworks: 20 years ago we were able to have Double Happys, and Tom Thumbs...(I Loved 'em)...some assholes decided to let the Idiot Factor take control...then they were banned...Skyrockets are now banned as ya all know, but does that stop the Idiot Factor? NO! Soon we wont be able to even buy fireworks at all...NOW THAT SUCKS....just cos of a few stupid idiots...

The same goes for bikes...Ya get a few IDIOTS, thats all they are ...self centred fucking dumbasses that try to fuck it up for everyone....thats my rant!

Mental Trousers

17th January 2008, 23:02

They're those kinky bastards that love having someone else wipe their arse for them. Sicko's.

Bikernereid

17th January 2008, 23:06

Personally I get pissed when I see people on sportbikes in t-shorts and shorts but that is just me. I don't get you would want to get on a bike without protecting yourself properly!!

As for the 'bimbo's on the scooters, it cracks me up that they bother so much about looking hot on the scooter but don't think about what a mess they will look when they have an accident!!

...any ideas from you lot? :spudwhat:

as riders, our ACC levies are massive because of the cost of our injuries. We know we can do fk all to protect ourselves from useless car drivers, but we can minimise the severity of our injuries by wearing riding gear...

Curiously tho, I've seen a lot of riders out and about all over the country-side, fully geared up - but no gloves??!! what the??

Since generally, hands tend to get v.munted vs tarseal at even low speeds (below 50km) why is it that folks choose to ride without gloves? is it a cost thing? is it a she'll be right thing? :slap:

same deal with open-face helmets...does anyone else think these should be banned too!! face vs tarseal....ouch!! :crazy:

(...and don't get me started on the scooter commuting office folks, in their protective skirts and manolo blahnik's for the girls, or safety cargo shorts n jandals for the boys...):weird:

anyway, will be interested to hear what you lot think.:not:

Mr Skid

17th January 2008, 23:14

I don't understand people not wearing gloves.
How do they expect to be able to masturbate with shredded hands? :confused:

Bikernereid

17th January 2008, 23:58

They get someone else to do it for them, just a suggestion!!

I don't understand people not wearing gloves.
How do they expect to be able to masturbate with shredded hands? :confused:

howdamnhard

18th January 2008, 00:24

I always wear gloves and full face helmet.Both slow speed bins I had would have taken the skin off my hands if I wasn't wearing gloves.Also wear all the other protective gear to.Always shake my head at the people riding in t shirts,shorts and jandals.Ever seen what a linisher(fixed belt sander) does to metal ,well imagine the road is the linisher and your skin and flesh is the metal.:shit::shit:

James Deuce

18th January 2008, 00:36

Burn them! Burn them all!

MaxB

18th January 2008, 00:42

Saw a scooter rider on my way home from work whose sole mission in life was to get past what ever the cost. Zig zagging through the traffic wearing a helmet, gloves, jacket, trackies and er clogs with bare feet. Plus he was riding feet down coming up to the lights. Ouch.

bandit_girl

18th January 2008, 00:43

NhuanH

18th January 2008, 00:45

same deal with open-face helmets...does anyone else think these should be banned too!! face vs tarseal....ouch!! :crazy:

I had to ride a road bike with a dirt helmet the other day - sans goggles! Not recommended in the British winter if you hope to exceed 60mp/h.
Yes, this speed can be achieved once you have negotiated the High St!
The sheer fashion faux-pas of this bike | helmet combo means it should be banned!

(...and don't get me started on the scooter commuting office folks, in their protective skirts and manolo blahnik's for the girls, or safety cargo shorts n jandals for the boys...):weird:
ain't nowt wrong with jandals! Leave them alone, safety nazi! :Pokey:

Romeo

18th January 2008, 00:47

James Deuce

18th January 2008, 00:51

Burn them too!

Taz

18th January 2008, 05:28

It's called freedom of choice people.

magicfairy

18th January 2008, 06:02

It's called freedom of choice people.

I don't get to pick how ACC spends my taxpayer $$$. Damaged hands put most people off work.
But I think its more of the "won't happen to me" philosophy.
I suspect glove wearing increases dramatically after a hand shredding accident.

spookytooth

18th January 2008, 06:09

Some ppl wear what they like or dont wear because its there choice.

madandy

18th January 2008, 06:12

It's called freedom of choice people.

Darwinism then? make helmets optional too.

nadroj

18th January 2008, 06:14

Some ppl wear what they like or dont wear because its there choice.

Yep but the pissing off bit is it is at our expence when they bin. We collectively need to get the message accross to them to keep our ACC premiums to a reasonable level.

Bikernereid

18th January 2008, 06:18

Jesus are you mad, I just got back to Blighty and my God it is effin freezing!! I am surprised you didn't get frostbite and lose your nose!!

I had to ride a road bike with a dirt helmet the other day - sans goggles! Not recommended in the British winter if you hope to exceed 60mp/h.
Yes, this speed can be achieved once you have negotiated the High St!
The sheer fashion faux-pas of this bike | helmet combo means it should be banned!

ain't nowt wrong with jandals! Leave them alone, safety nazi! :Pokey:

spookytooth

18th January 2008, 06:23

i dont condone not wearing the rite gear,but i doubt acc levies would ever come down no matter what.Acc is just another or the governments thieving hands in our pockets

sels1

18th January 2008, 07:09

Bugger the safety nazis, I'm in the 'freedom of choice' camp. Everything in life has a risk, and you weigh risk vs benefit in everything you do. If you fall off your bike on the highway wearing insufficent protection, then you are the one who will suffer and the Darwin theory kicks in.

Sometimes I will ride my bike in shorts and t shirt, but only when I consider the risk is low - what I call the "pushbike scenario" ie if its a route and speed I would travel on a pushbike (think lycra and a pudding bowl helmet and >50k)
then on a motorbike with superior brakes and acceleration, headlight on and full face helmet, I am a damn sight better off than a cyclist - and nobody seems to complain about them not wearing enough gear.

Coyote

18th January 2008, 07:15

I have a friend who is clostrophobic (sp) and cant stand to wear a full face helmet.... so they wear a open face helmet with a visor.
Are you saying that they shouldn't be riding their bike at all, when they love riding?
I used to be like that. Couldn't have the strap done up tight cause it felt like it was choking me. I got over it eventually. I'm now at the point where I think "where's my helmet" whilst looking through my visor :p

Blonde? Me?

DUCATI*HARD

18th January 2008, 07:25

[QUOTE=Ixion;1385486]An excellent idea. But a much better one would be to ban all those dreadful noisy "sportbike" motorcycles that those people race around on.

My friend Doris was innocently minding her own business, going along the road (and she's a VERY careful driver, never goes over 70kph), and one of those dreadful things raced by her at an absolutely suicidal speed. She never even saw it coming

thats because the old barstards count on us to look for them,ban all nana cage drivers!!!

vifferman

18th January 2008, 07:41

As for helmets check the 2nd pic
Interesting!
I've hit my helmet on the road once - 'your ' pic said only 02% of impacts are in that area (right visor cutout). I tellsya - it was a very minor impact (basically the same as falling off your bike at standstill), but gave me minor concussion and headaches for three days.

As for not wearing gloves and other stuff - it's HOT, y'know.

vifferman

18th January 2008, 07:49

...and don't get me started on the scooter commuting office folks
Oh. :weep:
I was hoping to get you started.
Can I just get me started instead?

A couple of years ago, I was communtering to work in Ponsonby, when I witnessed a scooterist collide with a car. (His scooter collided as well). The car's windows were a bit obscured by mist'n'dew, and the dumbarse driver thought "STOP" meant "slow a little, stop reading the paper and eating toast, and go if you feel like it".
The scooterist was well coordinated: he was wearing black shorty helmet, black shades, black jeans, black denim jacket, black t-shirt, and um... brown leather jandals. He was actually not too badly fuktover - just sore knees and a very sore looking area on his lower back, the size of a small dinner plate.

I, on the other hand, felt a real pillock standing there in ALL the gear (leather trou, leather/textile jacket with armour, armoured boots, gloves, fullfae, etc.

vifferman

18th January 2008, 07:52

ain't nowt wrong with jandals! Leave them alone, safety nazi! :Pokey:
Actually, there is something wrong with jandals - they need to make them with a toe-pad for changing gears.

I wrote off my first bike wearing jandals. T-boned a car at about 60km/h, somersaulted over the roof, landed on the hard, unforgiving tarseal.
I wonder what happened to those jandals? :confused: I think some bastid stole them while I was grovelling on the road. :Pokey:

MSTRS

18th January 2008, 07:58

Quite some time ago there was a similar thread (probably lots of 'em actually)...
However, I suggested that since it is the rider's choice, except the helmet, that a sliding scale of ACC cover should apply.
1/. All the gear = full cover (and I mean full, none of this you pay the first $50 or whatever)
2/. No gloves = rider pays a third, ACC covers the rest
3/. No jacket - pants - boots = as above
4/. No gear (barring helmet) = rider pays the lot
You get the idea?

car

18th January 2008, 08:28

I am a damn sight better off than a cyclist - and nobody seems to complain about them not wearing enough gear.

(I'm sure that Jim2 will be along shortly, but in his absence...)

*ahem*

Also burn them! Also!

yungatart

18th January 2008, 08:38

Sometimes it is free choice. A rider makes an informed decision on what they want to wear, and then don only the compulsory helmet (plus a minimal amount of clothing).
Other times people are unaware of the consequences of a minor off. They truly don't know that they will lose skin in vast amounts.
I wear ATGATT, but do not subscribe to making it compulsory by law!

Bikernereid

18th January 2008, 08:39

Not again, seeing this the first time was bad enough but twice is just torture!

I prefer my biker men in leathers, end of!

[QUOTE=DMNTD;1385805]The great Kiwi riding gear!

jrandom

18th January 2008, 08:57

I ride in whatever the hell I want, and anyone who tells me to do otherwise can get fucked.

*smiles sweetly*

My gear priority order goes:

1. Helmet

2. Gloves

3. Jacket

4. Boots

5. Pants

I'm spending this summer riding in jeans, because it's bloody hot and I always end up mooching around at each end of a ride in whatever I wore on the bike.

I'll upgrade the Levis to Draggins shortly, though.

mowgli

18th January 2008, 09:00

The weather's hot

As for not wearing gloves and other stuff - it's HOT, y'know.

I'd rather be a bit warm than increase my risk of serious injury.

Darwinism then? make helmets optional too.
I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately aunty helen disagrees and thinks that we're all too dumb to take personal responsibility for our actions. Rules, rules, any excuse, more rules sheesh!

vifferman

18th January 2008, 09:07

I ride in whatever the hell I want, and anyone who tells me to do otherwise can get fucked.
Good for you. Fairy Nuff. Personal irresponsibility and all that.
But because I could do with a fuck, I'll bite:
You are a very bad man.

My gear priority order goes:

1. Helmet

2. Gloves

3. Jacket

4. Boots

5. Pants

Mine's similar, except at the top of the list I have
1. Undies.
2. Sox.
And then I'd swap your 2 and 4 around, solely because on many short 'shopping' trips, I'd wear boots because I don't have shoes at work suitable for changing gear etc.

vifferman

18th January 2008, 09:09

Rules, rules, any excuse, more rules sheesh!
Good.
Goood! :niceone:
Another potential candidate for the Anti SafetyNazism League.
Except those of us who SafetyNazism also hate politics and all the bureaucracy that implies.

Usarka

18th January 2008, 09:12

Your tax pays ACC levies which fund all of acc, not just gloveless motorcycle crashes!

Lets make a ban list to save our tax!

Motorcycling (with or without gloves)
Motorsport
Running
Cycling
Swimming
Diving
Walking
Masturbating
Drinking
Eating
Rugby
Soccer
Cricket
Hockey
Windsurfing
Sailing
Painting
Roofing
Electrical work
Plumbing
Stapling
etc etc

What a cool world it will be.

car

18th January 2008, 09:40

Lets make a ban list to save our tax!

You missed out "fishing". Pretty damned dangerous, fishing: all them pointy hooks, water to fall into, the knives, the hypothermia.

Bikernereid

18th January 2008, 09:50

Love the way that pants are last so if you're in a hurry I guess we all get to see you in your helmet, gloves, jacket, boots n kecks. Yummy

I ride in whatever the hell I want, and anyone who tells me to do otherwise can get fucked.

*smiles sweetly*

My gear priority order goes:

1. Helmet

2. Gloves

3. Jacket

4. Boots

5. Pants

I'm spending this summer riding in jeans, because it's bloody hot and I always end up mooching around at each end of a ride in whatever I wore on the bike.

I'll upgrade the Levis to Draggins shortly, though.

jrandom

18th January 2008, 09:53

Love the way that pants are last so if you're in a hurry I guess we all get to see you in your helmet, gloves, jacket, boots n kecks. Yummy

Don't worry, sunshine, I speak only of pants of the armoured, leather variety. Non-protective trous of some sort are always in place.

Except for when I'm riding around the block naked and drunk in the dark for a dare.

:yes:

NhuanH

18th January 2008, 10:00

Jesus are you mad, I just got back to Blighty and my God it is effin freezing!! I am surprised you didn't get frostbite and lose your nose!!
I'm not sure how you know of my ferrous appendage; are those your eyes peering through? :banana:

Actually, there is something wrong with jandals - they need to make them with a toe-pad for changing gears.

I wrote off my first bike wearing jandals. T-boned a car at about 60km/h, somersaulted over the roof, landed on the hard, unforgiving tarseal.
I wonder what happened to those jandals? :confused: I think some bastid stole them while I was grovelling on the road. :Pokey:
You obviously did not seek the Racing Edition Ti Slider Jandal. Often mentioned but never heeded.
I think some confused gimp on a chook chaser found your missing jandal - left foot only though.

FROSTY

18th January 2008, 10:17

Heres the rub. Yep it grates at me seeing people in shorts and tee shirts.
But much as I hate it I think we would all hate it more if it was legislated that we all wear full gear full face lids etc

Waxxa

18th January 2008, 10:41

The reason why ACC levies are so high on all insurance policies is because of all the fraudulent claims that people submit.

90% of bike accidents are cause by non-bikers i.e. cars. Levies for cars should go up to compensate for their actions rather than bikers levies going up because we're the ones that get injured. Little makes sense in this world!

Her_C4

18th January 2008, 10:43

Heres the rub. Yep it grates at me seeing people in shorts and tee shirts.
But much as I hate it I think we would all hate it more if it was legislated that we all wear full gear full face lids etc

Agree entirely.

It grates me as well, from a number of different perspectives, but mostly from a personal one. The ONE time I took a bike out for a 'wee' ride around the bays (last Easter), I had on a pair of jeans, helmet, gloves, jacket and boots (well lets face I HAVE to take my boots or I can't reach the ground!!!;) ) ....... and I am still paying for it now - painfully.
:doh:
Personal responsibility is where it is at for me - lets NOT legislate away all our personal choice.

RearWheel

18th January 2008, 10:59

Minimal protective gear is just plain dumb ie just a brain bucket , but lets face it , it not a matter of if you come off but when , so my thinking is that the idiots will come off sooner rather than later and scuff themselfs up real bad and hopefully decide this 2 wheeled caper is not for them as its to dang dangerous and go back to driving their cages...... but then the next prob is that you now have another idiot in a cage to watch out 4 which in turn make my life as a two wheeler more dangerous which prob means i should wear even more protective gear. I just cant understand why some pple put so little value on their own bodies..... and if they dont value them selfs do you really think they give a shit about anyone else....... Get with the program people and use just a wee bit of common sence , you spend all you hard earned $$$ for the flash bike and then fuck all on looking after yourself,...... yep keep an eye out for one eyed one legged scuffed up cage drivers cos ya know right away their idiots :done:

Bikernereid

18th January 2008, 11:04

Each to their own and legislation wouldn't help I don't think as you will always have muppets who will ignore it. At the end of the day if they want to get battered, bruised lose skin then so be it!! I have seen a family friend in hospital withn the worst gravelled arse ever and he was not happy about it believe me!! Not sure if it was the pain or indignity of having to be on all fours all the time or both but he learnt a very valuable lesson about clothing and gravel not mixing!!

Heres the rub. Yep it grates at me seeing people in shorts and tee shirts.
But much as I hate it I think we would all hate it more if it was legislated that we all wear full gear full face lids etc

vifferman

18th January 2008, 11:37

As my son says frequently to me if I complain: "Waah."
(He's right, y'know. :yes: )

If I choose to not wear gloves, and crash, and wreck my hands, then that's my business, and something I'll have to live with.

If you're going to be really pragmatic about this, then why not legislate that anyone who ventures on the road should be attired in safety equipment? That includes cyclists, pedestrians, skateboarders, etc.

I saw an elderly woman out for a 'jog' this morning. She took a tumble on a very gently sloping footpath. If only she'd been earing a helmet, gloves, and leathers, she wouldn't have suffered any injuries from her faceplant.
And that's not an isolated case!
A couple of months ago, my (elderly) mother tripped and injured herself too!

A few years ago, my cousin died when he tripped over disembarking from his yacht and hit his head on the jetty. Very sad, as he was only in his 20s.

Waah.

FFS - life is a terminal illness. Sooner or later, you're going to croak. Along the way, there are risks and you will get hurt. In the final analysis, it's up to YOU what risks you're prepared to take.

Having said that, I think it's Fine'n'Dandy that there are some rules to protect dumbarses from themselves (and others from the dumbarses). Like compulsory helmets for cyclists and motorcyclists are A Good Thing, as are lifejackets for boaties. I've visited the brain injury ward at Waikato Hoss Spittle, and it was very scary.

But where do you draw the line? :spudwhat:

Do you really want every facet of your life dictated by some grey-suited, grey-faced bureaucrat in some dingy office somewhere?

Let's say it was compulsory to wear all the gear, all the time. This necessitates that there be legislation and piles of paper somewhere mandating what constitutes gear of a "satisfactory standard". So, I could be popping down to the dairy to get some milk (low fat, of course) for my low-fat, high-sawdust cereal, so I'm waering gloves, but they're just summer gloves, because I can't find my kevlar'n'carbonfibre-armoured race gloves, with built-in titanium joint protectors. Mr Plod has got bored with trying to meet his quota on people exceeding the new urban speedlimit of 35km/h by more than 0.5 km/h, so he's hanging out behind the recycling bins at the corner shops, busting any cyclists, motorcyclists and skateboarders not wearing full leathers, and any joggers not wearing a helmet, gloves and knee/elbow pads.
I get 50 points and $250 fine for not wearing officially-sanctioned NZS-certified safety equipment. :shit:

MSTRS

18th January 2008, 11:47

If I choose to not wear gloves, and crash, and wreck my hands, then that's my business,

Yes it is your business, but should the rest of us have to subsidise your ACC costs?

scumdog

18th January 2008, 11:49

I hope all those who feel full-faced helmets, armoured gloves and leathers with back protectors and armour in all the appropriate places should be mandatory are also riding bikes with Very Bright Colours and fitted with ABS too....

Where do you stop with the 'safety' thing?

Balance and personal responsibility people.

And where Waxxa got the info "90% of bike accidents are caused by non-bikers" from I'd like to know.

Pwalo

18th January 2008, 11:58

You guys worry far too much. Presumably you're all adults and can make your own decisions - just don't complain to me if you hurt yourselves.

I like to wear gloves, full face, armoured jacket, boots because I don't like bugs hitting me in the face, sunburnt or windburnt body parts, and because I'm attached to my skin.

Now where's my medication.

mowgli

18th January 2008, 12:05

Minimal protective gear is just plain dumb ie just a brain bucket , but lets face it , it not a matter of if you come off but when

I'm not planning to come off at all. I still wear full protective gear.

RearWheel

18th January 2008, 12:44

I'm not planning to come off at all. I still wear full protective gear.

Ha Ha Yep ur right we never PLAN to come off our bikes that would be a really dumb plan ..... best we can do is plan to survive it best we can should we come off...... bit like insurance really would rather not use it but glad ur covered if the worst happens.:doctor:

scumdog

18th January 2008, 12:46

Ha Ha Yep ur right we never PLAN to come off our bikes that would be a really dumb plan ..... best we can do is plan to survive it best we can should we come off...... bit like insurance really would rather not use it but glad ur covered if the worst happens.:doctor:

The difference is: You KNOW you're going to use the life insurance one day...

vifferman

18th January 2008, 12:48

Yes it is your business, but should the rest of us have to subsidise your ACC costs?
That's a good (and expected) point. So, you're saying if I choose to be cavalier about my safety, why should you have to be responsible for funding it? That it should be fair, and related to stuff like risk, personal responsibility, how much care I take to be 'safe', and stuff like that?

Well, seeing the ACC makes noises about "user pays", it would be nice if their levies were fair, and related to stuff like risk, personal responsibility, and stuff like that, wouldn't it?
But, alas - they're not.

We, as a group, are easy to target for fees, sort of a captive market. I dunno exactly how ACC work it out (couldn't find it in a cursory browsing of their site), but I suspect it goes summat like this (cue film clip, involving bureaucrat with one of those "Ch-ching" adding machines):
"Lessee.... our projected costs for those blasted motorcyclists falling off their bikes is 17 trillion shekel-dollars. Ch-ching!"
"Add in the number of off-road motorcycling accidents, and their costs. CH-ching!"
"Add in inflation index. Ch-ching!"
"My fees. Ch'ching!"
"Increased staff needed to cope with the extra work. Ch-ching!'
"That comes to 23 trillion shekel-dollars. Ch-ching!"
"Divide by the number of expected registered bikes on the road. Ch-ching!"
"Right-o. That's $220 per bike. Better round it up to $250, then add in some cents to make it look like it's accurate. Ch-ching!"

User pays?
Does it take into account the fact that some lucky individuals may own more than one bike, while they can only ride one at a time?
Does it take into account who/what caused the accident?
Does it deduct from the accident statistics non road-going motorcycles?

While I'm asking stupid questions, how about:
Are there levies on sportspeoples?
Do a proportion of our household rates go to cover ACC claims?
(Do they? I really don't know).

"Our homes are the most dangerous places of all: accidents at home killed over 300 people. 29,910 people were injured at home, with slips, trips and falls causing most injuries. Although men and women are injured in almost equal numbers, adult men are 70% more likely to be killed at home."

And:
"Over 1,100 people are killed in accidents each year, with more people killed in non-road accidents than on the roads."

It's a can of worms.
I guess we can't really expect the Gummint to look after us, with safety nets like ACC and a publicly-funded health system, and yet still have freedom to make decisions on our own, decide our own acceptable risk levels, be personally responsible, can we?

MSTRS

18th January 2008, 13:31

Good answer, Vifferman, and one I was counting on being posted. It points out nicely all the ludicrous shortfalls of this ACC system we are stuck with. The system that is brilliant on paper, just like Heilen and Mikhail's policies, but is actually stifling in it's operation.

flyen

18th January 2008, 16:24

It seems to me it is all about attitude and exposure, alot of people that wear little protective gear either think it won't happen to me or have never seen the result of the high speed( or even low speed crash).
like I have been told a few time:
riding along minding your own buisness
then all of a sudden
earth, sky
earth, sky
earth, sky
earth -- ambulance.

tarseal gets a little softer when hot but not enough for me to ever go out in anything but full gear.

keep the rubber side down.

MIZXR

18th January 2008, 17:43

ACC would pay more payouts to damaged rugby players than on accidents caused by motorcyles at least those not involving cars, but of course we lot are seen as likely to badly injure ourselves.

we have no big organisation to protect our interests

and there is a reason we are known as temporary NZ ers

FFS you talk about making laws but then we've all got to pay for them to enforce new rules when they cant manage the ones they have!

and as for the arguement about open face and full face helmets thet BOTH have dangerous properties. Personal choice is full face for me but

Swoop

18th January 2008, 19:01

same deal with open-face helmets...does anyone else think these should be banned too!! face vs tarseal....ouch!!

An excellent idea. But a much better one would be to ban all those dreadful noisy "sportbike" motorcycles that those people race around on.
The sooner those dangerous and antisocial toys are banned the better for everyone, including the riders, Why should I have to pay taxes and ACC to patch them up when they injure themselves?
It is intersting to note the amount of sprotbike riders who wear open-face helmets... A very rare breed indeed.

1/. All the gear = full cover (and I mean full, none of this you pay the first $50 or whatever)
2/. No gloves = rider pays a third, ACC covers the rest
3/. No jacket - pants - boots = as above
4/. No gear (barring helmet) = rider pays the lot
You get the idea?
Get's my vote.

(I'm sure that Jim2 will be along shortly, but in his absence...)

*ahem*

Also burn them! Also!
Good greif. Not another one trying to get his post-count up...

madmal64

18th January 2008, 19:39

Well Im another in the personal responsibility camp. We are all aware that if we fall we get hurt and to what level we wish to protect ourselves should be up to us.
Hell I must admit I even rode from my local corner store to my place earlier this week without my gloves on:bleh: I went into the shop to get some smokes (ban them too! they may kill me as well!) on my way from from work and couldnt be arsed putting them back on. It thought about it, weighed up the risk and took a punt. I DID think about it too. It was a really weird feeling and something that I was really concious of.
Hell I even wear an open face helmet when I travel on a V8 trike from time to time. I dont have to but I do because it feels right for me. It feels weird traveling in something without a roof at speed without a lid on but on the V8 trike I dont have to but I do.
As for if they made it compulsory to wear gloves, full face hemet etc it would reduce/ help eith ACC levies thats a laugh! The cost of enforcing it would put up of levies.

Live how you want to live, as long as it does not directly effect the way that any other person wants to live their lives. Does the act of another person NOT wearing gloves directly effect anyone else?

swbarnett

18th January 2008, 20:19

Soon we wont be able to even buy fireworks at all...NOW THAT SUCKS....just cos of a few stupid idiots...
The "few stupid idiots" lie in two camps - Those that think they have a right to remove our freedoms and those (us) that sit back and let it happen without a fight.

This has been discussed before:

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=59772

James Deuce

18th January 2008, 20:30

You're not allowed to say that any more. Reposts have been sanctioned by the KB community as the "only way to go".

swbarnett

18th January 2008, 20:39

You're not allowed to say that any more. Reposts have been sanctioned by the KB community as the "only way to go".
It wasn't intended so much as a repost alert more a sort of "I can't be bothered going through this all again when it's so well hashed back on page 42".

James Deuce

18th January 2008, 20:42

That too.

You're also allowed circular arguments now.

swbarnett

18th January 2008, 20:46

I promise, this is the last time (I don't want to be known as a referral junkie!).

Good discussions in here on the issue of banning things (you might have to hunt for it):

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=64162

mv.senna

19th January 2008, 03:08

well, this thread has generated some interesting discussion :2thumbsup good stuff, many thanks to you all.

Because I personally don't find wearing gloves/gear while riding a hardship, or difficulty, I don't understand why other people might. Therefore, the objective of posting this thread was to try and get myself an insight as to why i.e: what are the "barriers" if you like - is it cost, comfort, can't be r6'd, distance to be travelled etc completely unaware of the potential consequences....what's the rationalisation process behind wearing or not wearing of gear?

usually i'm not one to advocate generic banning or legislation changes about things, and believe very much in freedom of choice (especially if it doesn't impact on others) but lets be honest, open face helmets really are being incorrectly marketed as protective safety gear - to people who may/may not understand this. They protect very little in the instance of an off. Face vs tarseal = tarseal wins every time. (PS: point taken about the claustrophobia etc but that is possibly another issue).

while i liked the suggestion of the sliding scale of compensation that was suggested, unfortunately I think we all know that a system like this will never happen, because it's in the "too hard" category - much easier to target the riders. the thing that sh*ts me the most is that ACC know that motorcyclists are responsible only for 1/3 of all motorcycle accidents, however they target US to be "more careful"....this is because it's way too hard to focus on the bigger problem - that as a nation, the overall car driving skills have degenerated to the equivalent of the "doris" character described early in this thread.

...which brings me back to my earlier point....we're limited with what we can do to protect ourselves in 2/3rds of our crashes, so, if there's something we can do to minimise the damage to ourselves in the remaining 1/3rd (or in any situation) - i.e by wearing riding gear, then why wouldn't you?

PS:
1. ref to riding jandals - apologies, meant "crocs" - no disrespectin "the chandal"
2. as i understand it, we pay a levy within our wages/salary which provides funding for home/sports (non work) accidents. road accidents are funded via petrol tax and registrations; and motorcycle registrations go nowhere near providing enough funding to cover the cost of motorcycle accidents.

MacD

19th January 2008, 06:37

the thing that sh*ts me the most is that ACC know that motorcyclists are responsible only for 1/3 of all motorcycle accidents, however they target US to be "more careful"....

This might be true for urban intersection accidents, but another 1/3 of motorcycle accidents are of the single vehicle, open road, lost control (usually on a corner) type, which due to the higher speeds involved result in proportionally more fatalities and worse injuries (MoT Crash Statistics (http://www.mot.govt.nz/assets/NewPDFs/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet-July-07.pdf)).

Motorcyclists aren't quite as innocent on the road as we like to believe.

scumdog

19th January 2008, 10:24

This might be true for urban intersection accidents, but another 1/3 of motorcycle accidents are of the single vehicle, open road, lost control (usually on a corner) type, which due to the higher speeds involved result in proportionally more fatalities and worse injuries (MoT Crash Statistics (http://www.mot.govt.nz/assets/NewPDFs/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet-July-07.pdf)).

Motorcyclists aren't quite as innocent on the road as we like to believe.

True.

The two fatals in recent years that I went to were caused purely by rider incompetence, of the injury ones only ONE was caused by another vehicle (pulled out of a side-street on front of the bike) but even that rider was over the EBA limit.:doh:

discotex

20th January 2008, 20:02

As for the 'bimbo's on the scooters, it cracks me up that they bother so much about looking hot on the scooter but don't think about what a mess they will look when they have an accident!!

Scooters don't crash. Didn't you know that? ;)

Did anyone else see the granny ride the scooter into the wall during the warm up to the A1GP on 3 this afternoon? Had to laugh that the retards thought it would be a good idea to put a granny on a scooter in a shop and let her wring the throttle... Was very relieved she wasn't hurt and laughed it off.

Yep but the pissing off bit is it is at our expence when they bin. We collectively need to get the message accross to them to keep our ACC premiums to a reasonable level.

Fixing ACC might be a good start.

Quite some time ago there was a similar thread (probably lots of 'em actually)...
However, I suggested that since it is the rider's choice, except the helmet, that a sliding scale of ACC cover should apply.
1/. All the gear = full cover (and I mean full, none of this you pay the first $50 or whatever)
2/. No gloves = rider pays a third, ACC covers the rest
3/. No jacket - pants - boots = as above
4/. No gear (barring helmet) = rider pays the lot
You get the idea?

Yep.. I'd still say cover the cost of hostipal treatment but take away people's rights to 80% of their wage if their "personal freedom" significantly contributed to their inability to work. I believe some of the US states with no helmet and no seatbelt laws do something like that.

Good answer, Vifferman, and one I was counting on being posted. It points out nicely all the ludicrous shortfalls of this ACC system we are stuck with. The system that is brilliant on paper, just like Heilen and Mikhail's policies, but is actually stifling in it's operation.

Yep non-fault insurance cover means the insurer will want to minimise the risk of claims. When you're a government department it's easy to look to legislation to achieve that.

It is intersting to note the amount of sprotbike riders who wear open-face helmets... A very rare breed indeed.

That's because a mirror or dark tint visor looks stupid on a MOMO open face helmet.

Motorcyclists aren't quite as innocent on the road as we like to believe.

Nope they're all evil. Burn em.

ynot slow

20th January 2008, 20:38

Cause they are f.ckwits.

Agree with the sanding part re road and hands.Had a slow speed off years ago (30km)tops,gloves stopped a lot of damage,as me being a mere mortal I stuck then down first,although not moto glove but ski ones they did some of the trick,had a small group of bruises and cuts.Less than when I ran accross the street totally pissed one night and tripped,velocity of speed max 5kms,woke up with hand bandaged by my beloved and a sore elbow,palm of my hand was raw as,and at jogging speed not even fast to do damage,but cause I was pissed didn't remember lol.

Went for a ride today but had boots,gloves and jackets x2 both of us,and just jeans on,most of ride was at 50 km,but did about 10 km on highway and rural roads,reason for jeans only was we were not going far at 100km highway speeds and were too hot around town.

slopster

20th January 2008, 21:00

discotex

20th January 2008, 21:09

People are always having a go at scooter riders but your unlikely to get seriously injured at 50kmh. Big painful, sticky anoying grazes but not serious abrasions. At proper open road speeds of course your a fool to not be properely kitted up

Ok fair enough justification for wearing jeans (hell I use it) but you can grind a lot of tendon and bone off your hands at 50km/h.

Most serious cyclists and mountain bikers wear gloves right.......

At $99 I can't see why you wouldn't wear these (http://motoretail.co.nz/product.cfm?ID=5922)(and stick them in the 'boot' along with your helmet).

<img src="http://motoretail.co.nz/images/products/5922_l.jpg">

Daffyd

20th January 2008, 21:45

I ALWAYS wear all the gear, (from top down,) helmet, with armour), jacket, gloves, riding pants, (with armour), calf length boots. If really hot, draggin jeans in lieu of riding pants. Was given a new O/F helmet last week and used it for the first time today on a short ride. I hated it! Doubt that I'll ever use it again, except for maybe a trip down to the shop. (about 300 metres)

Owl

21st January 2008, 08:34

Fixing ACC might be a good start.

Yep.. I'd still say cover the cost of hostipal treatment but take away people's rights to 80% of their wage if their "personal freedom" significantly contributed to their inability to work. I believe some of the US states with no helmet and no seatbelt laws do something like that.

"Take away people's rights"???
You're off to a really good start in your attempt to fix ACC! Take away the income support and you take away ACC's incentive to provide treatment!

I apologise if my “personal freedom” has contributed to your higher ACC levies. If only I’d spent $700 on high tech race boots instead of the $350 for touring boots, I may not have crushed my foot and required ACC support. But I guess we’ll never know, so SORRY!

MSTRS

21st January 2008, 08:45

"Take away people's rights"???
You're off to a really good start in your attempt to fix ACC! Take away the income support and you take away ACC's incentive to provide treatment!

I apologise if my “personal freedom” has contributed to your higher ACC levies. If only I’d spent $700 on high tech race boots instead of the $350 for touring boots, I may not have crushed my foot and required ACC support. But I guess we’ll never know, so SORRY!

Under my system, you'd be fully covered. It's not the amount of $/protection that counts...it's the fact that you took a realistic level of responsibility towards protecting yourself in the first instance.

MSTRS

21st January 2008, 08:50

People are always having a go at scooter riders but your unlikely to get seriously injured at 50kmh. Big painful, sticky anoying grazes but not serious abrasions.

Oh yeah? Try it. Then report back. With photos.
Of course, it may depend on how you fall, what the road surface is made of, and whether you are on the flat, or going up/down hill....etc

Usarka

21st January 2008, 09:04

Under my system, you'd be fully covered. It's not the amount of $/protection that counts...it's the fact that you took a realistic level of responsibility towards protecting yourself in the first instance.

if someone had "all the gear" but was riding like a loon, would that fail the criteria of "realistic level of responsibility towards protecting yourself"?

MSTRS

21st January 2008, 09:06

if someone had "all the gear" but was riding like a loon, would that fail the criteria of "realistic level of responsibility towards protecting yourself"?

That has nothing to do with ACC. But expect an attachment to the 80% payout, courtesy of the courts....

Ixion

21st January 2008, 09:10

Or- if someone chooses to ride a 300kph sprotsbike at illegal speeds - hardly "realistic level of responsibility towards protecting yourself" is it

The reality is that ACC is (very wisely) a 'no fault' scheme. The frenzied shrieks of the holier-than-thou brigade demanding that those who infringe against their religious taboos shlould be excluded from it have (thank gods) absolutely zero chance of being listened to

I always find it a nicely balanced quandry to decide whether sprotsbike riders or crusier riders are the more arrogant.

scumdog

21st January 2008, 10:13

"Take away people's rights"???
You're off to a really good start in your attempt to fix ACC! Take away the income support and you take away ACC's incentive to provide treatment!

I apologise if my “personal freedom” has contributed to your higher ACC levies. If only I’d spent $700 on high tech race boots instead of the $350 for touring boots, I may not have crushed my foot and required ACC support. But I guess we’ll never know, so SORRY!

So... an extra $350 just for the hi-tech race boots eh?
How much for the other hi-tech gear?

Would that extra be less than the ACC levy $$$ (spread throughout the life of said hi-tech riding gear?)

"I don't think so Tim"

James Deuce

21st January 2008, 10:14

Drew

21st January 2008, 10:33

Exactly why I ride semi-naked.

Oh the humanity!!! Wont somebody think of the children.:sick:

Just kidding fella, you're a handsome man indeed.

yungatart

21st January 2008, 10:39

Exactly why I ride semi-naked.

OMG! I missed that!
When are you coming to HB again? The locals could do with some entertainment......

swbarnett

21st January 2008, 12:40

Jiminy

21st January 2008, 12:54

I think those discussions about what gear you wear and the effect of wearing (or not wearing) some types of gear are good, no matter how much is repeated from previous threads. At least they make you think.

I tend to wear lighter gear (e.g. fingerless gloves, Johnny Rebs short boots) in town or around the bays even if I often go beyond the 50 kph. After seeing a few pictures around, I'm at least back to proper gloves out of town.

Funny enough ;), I wouldn't even THINK of wearing all that leather on a mountain bike even when riding at 60+ kph downhill on the road. Btw, mountain bike gloves won't protect you much if at all if you fall on pavement.

As for the legislation/ACC debate, let's face it, what kind of gear you deem 'good enough' is highly subjective. The 'idiots' who ride with t-shirts, jandals, no or fingerless gloves will learn their lessons soon enough. Mind you, I don't think helmets should be mandatory for push bikes.

If we go for 'the user shall pay' theory, do we need insurance at all?

007XX

21st January 2008, 13:30

People are always having a go at scooter riders but your unlikely to get seriously injured at 50kmh. Big painful, sticky anoying grazes but not serious abrasions.

Sorry, but I very strongly disagree with this statement...no disrespect meant of course :D

In New Caledonia (where I am from), getting a scooter on your 14th birthday is kind of a right of passage...you get one or you get riled by everybody else.
Anyway, I had a fall about a year after getting mine (not my fault btw...) and I still have the scars to prove it.

The thing is: I had jeans on, a full face helmet and a leather jacket...had I not had these, all my front teeth would have probably been left on the back of the car who cut in front of me, and my knees would have been in a much bigger mess than they are now

50km or not an hour, when someone cuts in front of you for example, your bike may stop, but your body is still going at the same speed.

My sister (15 years of age) has a scar about 25cm long on her calf where the flesh was singed by the exhaust pipe....little tart didn't listen to me and went riding in short. :angry2:

It cannot be repeated enough: even if you're doing only 20km/hr, someone going at 120km/hr could hit you...do the math and don't take the risk, or at least put all the chances on your side: wear the darn gear!!!

scumdog

21st January 2008, 13:37

Went to a crash last night XL125 vs HiLux head-on..

Dude had broken leg and face/head injuries.

No leathers/gloves, no helmet.

Helmet would certainly have helped but any other gear would not have made his injuries less.

Nagash

21st January 2008, 13:58

People are always having a go at scooter riders but your unlikely to get seriously injured at 50kmh. Big painful, sticky anoying grazes but not serious abrasions.

Disagree, I am currently suffering a broken arm, torn ligament in mywrist that'll need an operation, stitches, road rash from going 20k on a push bike.

People really need to wear all the gear all the time no matter the situation because as stated, if it's just a fall then fair enough. But there's many ways to crash.

Waxxa

21st January 2008, 16:34

I read in the newspaper last year about road accidents and insurance cover which stated there that 90% of motorcycle accidents happened from other factors than the biker themselves. The remaining 10% comes from a mixture of driver incompetence like riding beyond conditions, beyond skill levels and other unforseen causes like oil spills, cars running red lights and stop signs etc and kids on go-karts coming out at ya. It was an interesting article which is why these figures have stuck in my mind.

discotex

21st January 2008, 17:00

"Take away people's rights"???
You're off to a really good start in your attempt to fix ACC! Take away the income support and you take away ACC's incentive to provide treatment!

Huh? ACC currently fail abysmally at providing support to get people back to work quickly.

I apologise if my “personal freedom” has contributed to your higher ACC levies. If only I’d spent $700 on high tech race boots instead of the $350 for touring boots, I may not have crushed my foot and required ACC support. But I guess we’ll never know, so SORRY!

How about you taking away my personal freedom to spend my hard earned cash on MY CRASH and MY STUPIDITY not yours? (figuratively speaking as you were obviously doing the right thing)

Under my system, you'd be fully covered. It's not the amount of $/protection that counts...it's the fact that you took a realistic level of responsibility towards protecting yourself in the first instance.

Exactly. The argument that it all balances out in the end is weak. Certain parts of the population get a free ride from ACC and others use it very little.

People should expect free medical cover (regardless of their stupidity) but should take out their own income protection insurance.

if someone had "all the gear" but was riding like a loon, would that fail the criteria of "realistic level of responsibility towards protecting yourself"?

How about chopping off your arm while juggling chainsaws?

The reality is that ACC is (very wisely) a 'no fault' scheme. The frenzied shrieks of the holier-than-thou brigade demanding that those who infringe against their religious taboos shlould be excluded from it have (thank gods) absolutely zero chance of being listened to

If I smoke for 20 years I expect to pay higher life insurance premiums. If I ride with no gear like a dick I expect to pay more but ACC won't charge me if I play rugby but will (through rego) if I ride a motorcycle. Doesn't sound like 'no fault' to me.

Conversely if I take care of my body I expect lower life insurance premiums and to pay less ACC.. Not an option though is it? Where is the incentive to lower my own (and others) risk of injury?

Don't even get me started on the poor people unfortunate to miss out on 80% of their income because they get cancer instead of falling off a ladder because they didn't bother to have someone hold it..........

mv.senna

21st January 2008, 18:34

"Discotex: ...ACC won't charge me if I play rugby but will (through rego) if I ride a motorcycle. Doesn't sound like 'no fault' to me"

apparently the levies we pay in our wages/salary are meant to contribute to funding for non-professional sprots injuries, and home injuries.

Discotex: Don't even get me started on the poor people unfortunate to miss out on 80% of their income because they get cancer instead of falling off a ladder because they didn't bother to have someone hold it........

amen. used to be an ambo in a prev life (hence the thing with folks not wearing riding gear)... gave me the absolute shts seeing nana's and grandpa's who'd worked hard and contributed all their life, having to live on the bones of their R6s coz they had a medical condition (cancer, heart attacks, strokes etc) and therefore had no financial support (for meds etc).... if only they'd tripped or slipped instead, ACC would've taken care of them! ....oh dear, i'm ranting off my own topic again :Oops:

Owl

21st January 2008, 20:23

Huh? ACC currently fail abysmally at providing support to get people back to work quickly.

I never said ACC was perfect or close to it, but your idea to only cover hospital treatment with no income support is seriously flawed. ACC are far more motivated in getting you back to work if they are paying your income!

motorbyclist

22nd January 2008, 18:14

myself always wear as much as practically possible, and full kit in wet weather or longer rides

even wear my gloves and helmet on the pocket rocket, and often my jacket too

as fun as leaving bone on the road is, i think i'll try my best to prevent it

what anyone else does is their own business, at their own expense (along with taxpayers for ACC and us bikers when we see the road statistics)

Number One

22nd January 2008, 18:36

Why don't people wear ATGATT?

...they are twats who don't really value their skin.

Clearly they have never had to have a skin graft - from what I hear if they had have they would think twice about it! :angry2:

Usarka

22nd January 2008, 18:48

A shitload of the proponents of forcing everyone to have "all the gear" (or to ride safely for that matter) have learnt through lessons.

what they forget was what their reaction would have been if someone said the same to them before their incident (or whatever learned them the lesson).

Most would have told you "fuck off mind your own business, I'll take the risk".

thehollowmen

22nd January 2008, 19:33

while I used to be an ATGATT person, I must say I've lapsed a little lately. I'm back on great big winter gloves on any journey longer than to work in no / light traffic, just because I've been a plonker and lost a few pairs of gloves lately, falling out of my helmet, nicked off my seat when I've been taking the keys out (!!!) and the like.

Yes, I value my skin, and will be wearing full leathers out in the country, and my draggins for a big day in the town. And I value my hands too, but it is a choice I'm making with my convenience vs risk. A stinking hot day, going just a few km, I'll leave my jacket unzipped a bit and my gloves off so I can be my metro/petrosexual biker self rather than promote the image of big unclean louts.:girlfight:

Yes, I agree we need to be safe and use the gear as much as we can, but we also don't want to be safe enough that we have our bikes permanently mounted above the mantle-piece along with a brass plaque that says "the older i get the faster I was"

MSTRS

22nd January 2008, 19:35

Number One

22nd January 2008, 20:04

Yes, I agree we need to be safe and use the gear as much as we can, but we also don't want to be safe enough that we have our bikes permanently mounted above the mantle-piece along with a brass plaque that says "the older i get the faster I was"

Firstly - Gloves knicked off yer seat?! That sucks! Dirrrty buggaz!

On the note of yer post...too right, to each his own!

However I'm confused....

So you said you agree that we should "use the gear as much as we can" SO by we do you actually just mean other motorcyclists or noobs? AND by use the gear as much as we can do you really mean - except for when it suits us not to like when it's a bit hot or we don't feel it necessary as we are only going a wee way.

..Seems to me that shit happens when we least expect it...I hate wearing ATGATT on hot days (peeeuuuuwwww) but crikey I'm a total woose when it comes to pain so I'll put up with that temporary discomfort to prevent a much worse and lingering one.

Maybe I've missed your point here though hollowmen?:confused:Probably...:stupid:and if so feel free to put me in my place.....BUT just incase, what prey tell, does growing older and going slower/faster have to do with the choice to NOT wear your full gears while riding (at any given time?) :confused:

My dad can be a real shocker for this and I give him crap about it all the time...because I love him to bits btw not because I feel it's my roll to suck all the joy and freedom out of his life.

Me - I'll just settle for growing old, admitting and 'celebrating' my nana-ness:laugh: (as it will no doubt have helped me to; a) keep my skin on my body and; b) possibly helped to keep me alive) and still being able to get on my bike and ride...as for mantle-pieces...do people still have those?

0.02c

the mouse

22nd January 2008, 20:19

As a survivor of a low speed off - high sided from the pillion seat.
I slid head first along the tarseal with my arms at my sides, the protective leather gloves i was wearing peeled off my hands like butter. I had blood red hands for some time until they scared over and healed up, but hey, i still have hands.

Don't be a dumb ass, wear the gloves.

thehollowmen

23rd January 2008, 17:47

So you said you agree that we should "use the gear as much as we can" SO by we do you actually just mean other motorcyclists or noobs? AND by use the gear as much as we can do you really mean - except for when it suits us not to like when it's a bit hot or we don't feel it necessary as we are only going a wee way.
0.02c

I think I try to mean "We should wear as much gear as we can stand to wear for this ride" applying to everybody.

We need to be safe, but not too safe. After all, why ride when you're not having fun?

ital916

23rd January 2008, 18:46

I think i might be an anomaly among the noobs learners as i tend to really wear a lot of gear when i ride. Helmet, gloves, boots, armored cordura pants, armored cordura jacket, high visibility vests and a teknic back protector. On top of that most of the time witha backpack. I find that i would rather be hotter and sweat a little than have no skin to sweat out of. The back protector also adds support with the hunched position on my bike. ATTGATT...something i live by! Never go out without all that *excet sometimes where a back protector is too cumbersome like with a full backpack*. ATTGATT...to all fellow noobs...ATTGATT................ATTGATT............ ................ATTGATT!

Usarka

23rd January 2008, 19:48

*excet sometimes where a back protector is too cumbersome like with a full backpack

oooh, never go riding with a backpack full of stuff and no back protector! you might fall off and puncture an organ with something hard in your pack, and we'd have to pay for it through ACC!

:innocent:

jrandom

23rd January 2008, 19:55

Helmet, gloves, boots, armored cordura pants, armored cordura jacket, high visibility vests and a teknic back protector. On top of that most of the time witha backpack...

*makes note to self to wave to any large black shapeless masses attempting to hide RG150s from view on the road*

ATTGATT................ATTGATT.................... ........ATTGATT!

So... what does ATTGATT stand for, then?

jrandom

23rd January 2008, 20:03

I always find it a nicely balanced quandry to decide whether sprotsbike riders or crusier riders are the more arrogant.

It is my cherished goal to own one of each, so that I may ride the cruiser wearing a kangaroo-leather one-piece with knee sliders, back protector, ultra-tarty race boots and carbon fibre helmet with an iridium visor, and the sprotsbike wearing a T-shirt with a rude slogan, flappy board shorts, Mk I Kiwi Safety Jandals and a scratched-up matte black pudding bowl.

And Ray-Bans.

Cos Ray-Bans are cool.

:yes:

<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/Lt_Mike_Hunter_2.jpg/180px-Lt_Mike_Hunter_2.jpg"/>

NiggleC

23rd January 2008, 21:58

Bloody Mad Woman (BMW)

24th January 2008, 08:12

Been doing a *lot* of driving around CHCH lately, and I've seen 30+ motorcyclists over the last week. And out of the lot there were only a handfull wearing adequite gear. The weather's hot, but wearing a t-shirt, shorts and sandals <acronym title="Will more likely than not">can</acronym> turn even the most minor off into a serious hospital stay. Speaking of <acronym title="No shit, I've seriously seen 5+ motorcyclists wearing sandals">sandals</acronym>, who the fuck would be so retarded?

For instance, I saw one guy on a new GSXR 600(<acronym="Maybe?">?</acronym>), <acronym title="Seriously expensive jacket">Alpinestars</acronym> jacket and no gloves, what's the deal with that?

<a href="http://www.clutchandchrome.com/News/0710/News0710028.htm">Strict Nazi gear laws ftw</a>.

Over Xmas New Year I spent 10 days in Nelson - I could not believe what the locals wore on their "fast bikes" as above! You could tell the tourists and intelligent riders - full protective gear (even tho it was hot) - and then you would see their packs at the back of the bike!

The retards on Scooters - I wont waste oxygen/time on them.

I cannot and will not get on my bike without protective clothing. I recently bought some light leathers - protective padding in them, esp for summer and cos I'd lost weight. I love them and has made riding in hot weather more bearable - and I actually got a compliment from a group of guys the other day when I parked up in town - wow love the outfit. (I had a blond moment and wondered what they were talking about duh) Even better that they look good - but safety and protection is my main priority. I won't let anyone on my bike as a pillion unless they are suitably attired to my standards.

vifferman

24th January 2008, 08:19

It is my cherished goal to own one of each, so that I may ride the cruiser wearing a kangaroo-leather one-piece with knee sliders, back protector, ultra-tarty race boots and carbon fibre helmet with an iridium visor, .... etc
LOL!
Make sure the leathers are brightly coloured, with race sponsor slogan badge thingies on!

Pwalo

24th January 2008, 09:43

To me it comes down to this. No gloves in an accident means you could lose the skin on your hands and fingers. Then whose the unlucky sod who's gonna wipe your arse for the next month. Your mum, dad, spouse, best mate?? No brainer really.

That's the one thing that was sooooo pleased to be able to do when I broke my hands!

Having only pins in my right hand was really, really, good.

Not having to worry about any lost skin was a real bonus.

motorbyclist

24th January 2008, 13:57

three cheers for skin grafts!

hip-hip!

no?
no-one?

not even the ones without gear?

funny that

Taz

24th January 2008, 18:48

*makes note to self to wave to any large black shapeless masses attempting to hide RG150s from view on the road*

So... what does ATTGATT stand for, then?

The guys got a stutter.

Chrislost

24th January 2008, 20:46

there was this one time, in the not so distant past...
i was riding along.

for some reason i found myself on the ground.
wasnt till a week after that i saw what my glove looked like.
it WAS an alpine stars SP2...
now im just glad it was there...

Bikernereid

24th January 2008, 21:03

These people aren't bothered by being safe it is about looking cool so I don't they really care how cheap gloves are. it is doesn;t fit tyhe ensemble it doesn't get a look in!!

[QUOTE=discotex;1388989]Ok fair enough justification for wearing jeans (hell I use it) but you can grind a lot of tendon and bone off your hands at 50km/h.

Most serious cyclists and mountain bikers wear gloves right.......

At $99 I can't see why you wouldn't wear these (http://motoretail.co.nz/product.cfm?ID=5922)(and stick them in the 'boot' along with your helmet).

rocketman1

29th January 2008, 17:26

For all these guys and girls that dont wear protective gear. Someone should ask them what it would feel like if I tied a rope around their ankle and I towed them down the road at 80km/hr. equates to about the same thing.
Geeze it hurts my lily white feet just walk on a rough tarsealed road.
Has anyone felt how much it hurts your hands just rest your hands on tarseal ie when changing a tyre.
Enough said
Once you have an off on bare skin I would think it would be the last time you want to be on a motorbike..

James Deuce

30th January 2008, 16:52

swbarnett

30th January 2008, 17:12

Hot weather riding solution #88976, part b.

Get one of those lightweight lycra blend tube scarves.

Wet it thoroughly.

Put it on.

As the it dries in the heat, evaporative cooling will keep both your neck and the blood supply to your head cool. Feels really nice and when it stops working after about 90 mins, it's probably time to stop and drink some water anyway.
I do exactly this when in my sea kayak. It lasts about 15minutes or less in the hot weather and I have to refresh it. If I don't refresh it it only makes the problem worse. Luckily there's an inexhaustible supply of water when I'm paddling, not so on the bike

James Deuce

30th January 2008, 17:23

I did it today on the bike in 30 degree + temperatures and it lasted 90 minutes between refresh. The bike jacket insulates the scarf so It doesn't just drain dry instantly, like it would if it were exposed entirely to naked atmosphere.

swbarnett

30th January 2008, 17:41

HornetBoy

30th January 2008, 17:42

was passed along the sh3 this morning by a guy on a gsxr , was a nice looking bike,but gave me the shivers to think what would happen to that guy in a spill at 100kmph+ (wearing a t-shirt,shorts and wait for it .....jandels wtf?) i dont think ive seen anything more stupid other than someone not wearing a helmet...made me double look as he slowly passed me and waved then accelerated off

just plain shocking

James Deuce

30th January 2008, 17:45

Maybe it's a different material. Where do you get these? It sounds like they could help.

Mine was free on the front of TWO magazine :)

It stays damp under the jacket so you can pull it through the neck hole gradually.

Just look for the cheapest one you can find at a bike shop. I think Oxford do a really cheap one which is the same as mine, but with an Oxford logo instead of TWO magazine.

motorbyclist

30th January 2008, 18:09

HornetBoy

30th January 2008, 18:34

how do you even change gears with jandals? (unless of course he's got some sort of gear-stick pad or one mean callus on the top of his foot)

exactly !! lol yea the callus had come to mind ... i dunno just plain stupid ,i mean even going a lil low round a corner and you could swipe ya toes or skim some skin off :pinch:

Roki_nz

30th January 2008, 19:54

talking about open faced helmets... some people can't put them on properly

wolf.47

30th January 2008, 21:16

motorbyclist

30th January 2008, 22:31

jacket, gloves and full face helmet MINIMUM for me, pants and boots whenever possible and always on open road/wet weather riding

heck i even kit up even for a 15 minute blat on the dirtbikes... last time my mate didn't wear a helmet it was on a test ride after 3 hours of oil change/service/tweaking etc. didn't get more than 30 metres and we were picking him up off the gravel and carting him to the A&E. hit neutral changing up in his skate shoes, bike revved then went into second; bike went up and sideways. not pretty on chunky gravel with only shoes, board shorts and a t-shirt

if it's hot i unzip my jacket half way and let the cold air flow in - best feeling ever. otherwise i HardenTheFuckUp

Roki_nz

31st January 2008, 17:09

jacket, gloves and full face helmet MINIMUM for me, pants and boots whenever possible and always on open road/wet weather riding

if it's hot i unzip my jacket half way and let the cold air flow in - best feeling ever. otherwise i HardenTheFuckUp

When I used to ride I always made sure I had all my gear on (Jacket, helmet, Gloves) and I agree if its hot just Harden up. Besides a lot of jackets have warm inner layers which you can remove for summer.

James Deuce

31st January 2008, 17:33

Jeepers, the gear Nazis have reasserted themselves.

Godwin's Law, FTW.

swbarnett

31st January 2008, 17:45

jcupit69

31st January 2008, 19:02

(...and don't get me started on the scooter commuting office folks, in their protective skirts and manolo blahnik's for the girls, or safety cargo shorts n jandals for the boys...):weird:

Too true sadly. I am constantly horrified by what i see people wearing riding scooters!!! You may be on a scooter but that doesnt mena your gonna land on pillows, your gona hit the tarmac like the rest of us!!! :spanking:

Full face helmet, gloves, jacket and boots are the bare minimum 4 me!!!!

James Deuce

31st January 2008, 19:07

For goodness sake. If you guys are going to be so hardcore about what other people wear on bikes why don't you just join the Popo and rant at people for travelling 2 kms/hr over the speed limit on an open, empty highway.

It's none of your business, and I'll defend your right to wear whatever you want with my life.

Live and let live, FFS. I thought bikers were supposed to be a bit individual in their approach to life, or are you all closet 50cc scooter riders?

As I said earlier, I invoked Godwin's Law, you Gear-Nazis.

This thread is dead.

Nagash

31st January 2008, 19:20

But the whole thread is envoking people's opinion on the matter.

Just because you don't agree with their opinion doesn't make it any less valid, some people do indeed follow and prefer others to follow ATGATT, is it their business what others do? No. But people aren't exactly forcefully stopping people from riding if they don't have their kevvlar socks on.

It's an opinion, don't like the opinion? Don't read it. Simple as,

James Deuce

31st January 2008, 19:28

No it's not that simple and people in this thread have threatened to actively "intervene".

The type of opinions in this thread can be used as evidence that motorcyclists are too stupid to look after themselves and the type of gear we have to wear could be mandated.

The opinions in this thread, vehemently supporting ATGATT, are the type of poison that is ruining NZ.

It really isn't anyone's business to cast an opinion on what you wear on a motorcycle. It is exactly the same thing as pointing at a couple walking down the street and declaring one person to be far too ugly to be with the other.

There is a poisonous attitude creeping into KB that there is only the right way and the wrong way when it comes to do with anything motorcyle related. It's insidious, divisive, and rude.

Nagash

31st January 2008, 19:40

But it is teaching a safe attitude to riding. If a community of motorcyclists object to people wearing nothing but a t-shirt (refusing to wave, whatever) then people will get the correct gear to be accepted (every humans goal).

And lets face it, wearing all the gear is much safer (no objections there I hope) and even though it's your body etc. ec. no one likes to get road rash.

By objectingto telling people to wear ATGATT you then envoke the (Honda) rebel within people who then start wearing the minimum amount of clothing just to show how much they don't care about other's opinion (or their skin).

Not saying i've ever actually told anyone to put some leathers on but I always think to myself that they probably should..

James Deuce

31st January 2008, 20:25

I object to nothing, and will gladly offer advice, based on my own experience, if asked.

Wearing all the gear isn't necessarily safer. There's nothing safe about riding a bike after all, and some people think a one piece leather suit with a hump makes them invulnerable. They'd probably rider "safe" nude.

Your last line indicates you are a gentleperson and on the path to true enlightenment.

Swoop

31st January 2008, 20:48

Entirely the choice of the rider what gear he/she wears.

Personally, I enjoy sitting on the dunny, relaxing and reading a magazine.

motorbyclist

31st January 2008, 20:51

A question for those that say just HTFU - Do you ride every day?

For those of us that commute by motorcycle the situation can be quite different to those that just ride on weekends. Something that is only a minor inconvenience if only done once a week can become a major hassle if done daily.

Which is not meant to excuse a lack of gear, just wondering whether there's a correlation.

every day rain or shine unless both my road bikes are unavailable or i'm carrying a sizeable cargo (cargo usually being one of the bikes)

can't afford to not use the bike

can't be arsed waiting in traffic

love riding - htfu years ago

For goodness sake. If you guys are going to be so hardcore about what other people wear on bikes why don't you just join the Popo and rant at people for travelling 2 kms/hr over the speed limit on an open, empty highway.

well i never commanded anyone else to wear gear, but i am allowed to express my concern for another's safety and i am also allowed to say what i think is a "safe" way to ride and what gear i myself wear

it's called freedom of speech - now who's the nazi?

I object to nothing, and will gladly offer advice, based on my own experience, if asked.

Wearing all the gear isn't necessarily safer. There's nothing safe about riding a bike after all, and some people think a one piece leather suit with a hump makes them invulnerable. They'd probably rider "safe" nude.

while you're right, i don't think a lot of the guys who never wear gear ride safer because of it

classic one me and Drider saw was a girl on her scooter (pink open face helmet and a few scraps of clothing beyond that) approaching the roundabout on boston road in heavy traffic. she shot up the left hand side of the traffic, looked left and turned right without so much as slowing. never looked right and due to her position the cars with right of way never saw her till she was in the roundabout... i doubt she ever realised how close she was to some serious harm

James Deuce

1st February 2008, 09:33

well i never commanded anyone else to wear gear, but i am allowed to express my concern for another's safety and i am also allowed to say what i think is a "safe" way to ride and what gear i myself wear

it's called freedom of speech - now who's the nazi?

Godwin's law trumps the "Freedom of Speech" argument.

Freedom of Speech does not give you the right to anonymously bag people for not following your view of the world. Freedom of speech provides you with a mechanism to debate your point of view with those who disagree.

You're just whining about someone expressing their freedom differently to you.

Ragingrob

1st February 2008, 09:39

If everyone just wore the gear all motorcyclists would get less shit from people and be more respected, rather than having an image of dumb teens who think they're cool. Anything can happen out there, even not thinking of other road users! If you're cruising along at 100kph in jeans and shirt of hoody even and your front tyre blows for no apparent reason, you're gonna be skidding and bouncing of the road using your skin as tread, mmm yummy!

swbarnett

1st February 2008, 11:18

If everyone just wore the gear all motorcyclists would get less shit from people and be more respected,
And if everyone was the same race there wouldn't be racism.

Vive Le Difference!

Ragingrob

1st February 2008, 11:27

And if everyone was the same race there wouldn't be racism.

Vive Le Difference!

People aren't born with gear or no gear...

swbarnett

1st February 2008, 12:34

People aren't born with gear or no gear...
But they are born with free will.

Who a person is at any point in time has two components - genetics and environment. Respect their right to be who they are. To try to impose your views on personal safety on anyone else is prejudice. Their safety is their own concern.

By all means try to educate but temper that with the sensitivity to recognise when your input is not appreciated and respect their right not to listen. And under no circumstances have we the right to legislate anything where the direct consequence is limited to the person legislated against.

Ixion

1st February 2008, 12:35

If everyone drove cars there'd be none of these problems. Actually, even better, if everyone went by bus. Guess where the compulsion because it's for your own good path ends up ?

HenryDorsetCase

1st February 2008, 12:38

If everyone drove cars there'd be none of these problems. Actually, even better, if everyone went by bus. Guess where the compulsion because it's for your own good path ends up ?

Trains that run on time? Fewer undesirable minorities cluttering up the place? Lovely marching music played in the streets? More "lebensraum"?

Whats bad about any of that?

Ixion

1st February 2008, 12:41

It's all good fun until someone loses a war. Then you're hanging upside down from a lamppost.

Ragingrob

1st February 2008, 13:32

But they are born with free will.

Who a person is at any point in time has two components - genetics and environment. Respect their right to be who they are. To try to impose your views on personal safety on anyone else is prejudice. Their safety is their own concern.

By all means try to educate but temper that with the sensitivity to recognise when your input is not appreciated and respect their right not to listen. And under no circumstances have we the right to legislate anything where the direct consequence is limited to the person legislated against.

Well I dunno, because their personal choice affects everyone else sometimes too. If a biker crashed into me and died because they had no gear it would wreck MY life aswell as theirs and all their family's. Pretty selfish choice to wear no gear... Would you say that suicide is personal choice or would you impose your views to not kill themselves?

Ixion

1st February 2008, 13:39

Ragingrob

1st February 2008, 13:56

Well, based on the statistics it's pretty obvious that the really danger is young drivers and riders, not older ones not wearing "gear".

So, I take it you'd support having the licence age (for any licence) raised to 26 ?

Cos otherwise, you'd be being pretty selfish. After all, if you as a young and accident prone person crash into me and die , it'd stuff up my life too.

So, 26 OK by you ?

Older riders lead by example don't they? If young teens see old "cool" guys riding with no gear, why should they?

This isn't a question of the young people not wearing gear, it's every rider who doesn't wear gear. I'm sure we could raise the license age, but then 26 year olds will still be learners. From what I see on the road the actual majority of tossers who run people off the road and intimidate people are 30 and 40 year olds in their holdens and fords going through mid-life crises.

Why'd you pick out 26 anyway? I'd fully support raising the licensing age up to 18 or so, but 26? Everyone getting married and still can't drive? :2thumbsup

if you as a young and accident prone person crash into me and die

Why am I accident prone? Never having got a scratch on my bike I can't see why? I wear all the gear all the time and ride to the conditions...

The whole "accident prone" motto for teens is based around being "invincible" yeah? Surely all the older riders out there with no gear must think they're invincible too, it's a question of mindset, not age.

Ragingrob

1st February 2008, 14:07

The main point I wanna get across is that sure people can say "It's their choice and if they get hurt then bad luck and HTFU", but in reality not wearing gear can also affect other people involved in the crashes and that should be a thought when you decide what to wear also.

Ixion

1st February 2008, 14:19

Older riders lead by example don't they? If young teens see old "cool" guys riding with no gear, why should they?

This isn't a question of the young people not wearing gear, it's every rider who doesn't wear gear. I'm sure we could raise the license age, but then 26 year olds will still be learners. From what I see on the road the actual majority of tossers who run people off the road and intimidate people are 30 and 40 year olds in their holdens and fords going through mid-life crises.

Why'd you pick out 26 anyway? I'd fully support raising the licensing age up to 18 or so, but 26? Everyone getting married and still can't drive? :2thumbsup

Why am I accident prone? Never having got a scratch on my bike I can't see why? I wear all the gear all the time and ride to the conditions...

The whole "accident prone" motto for teens is based around being "invincible" yeah? Surely all the older riders out there with no gear must think they're invincible too, it's a question of mindset, not age.

26 because statistics and trick cyclists both agree that , on average, that is when youff becomes sensible and safer.

You're *statistically* accident prone because you're young. You want to impose your prejudices on others generally, just because "that's what I think". Why shouldn't I do the same ?

The logic being that an older rider even without gear is less likely to be a drain on ACC (which is the argument used by the gear nazis) than a young rider, with or without gear. So the most EFFECTIVE way to reduce the ACC bill (cos that is what you're worried about, right, that's what you keep telling us) is to ban young riders.

As to older riders being invincible? Well, I guess they *have* gotten to *be* older riders, after all.

Ragingrob

1st February 2008, 14:28

26 because statistics and trick cyclists both agree that , on average, that is when youff becomes sensible and safer.

You're *statistically* accident prone because you're young. You want to impose your prejudices on others generally, just because "that's what I think". Why shouldn't I do the same ?

The logic being that an older rider even without gear is less likely to be a drain on ACC (which is the argument used by the gear nazis) than a young rider, with or without gear. So the most EFFECTIVE way to reduce the ACC bill (cos that is what you're worried about, right, that's what you keep telling us) is to ban young riders.

As to older riders being invincible? Well, I guess they *have* gotten to *be* older riders, after all.

I haven't mentioned anything about the ACC bill Ixion...

Look, my opinion was solely based on the welfare of peoples lives... I would be quite devastated if I was in a crash for some reason and a rider died when it could've been prevented by wearing gear.

But I guess now if someone dies because they weren't wearing gear I'll have no sympathy for them or their family, it was their choice so who cares! If that's what you want everyone's views on motorcyclists to be.

swbarnett

1st February 2008, 14:34

Well I dunno, because their personal choice affects everyone else sometimes too. If a biker crashed into me and died because they had no gear it would wreck MY life as well as theirs and all their family's. Pretty selfish choice to wear no gear... Would you say that suicide is personal choice or would you impose your views to not kill themselves?
Actually, I'm a supporter of suicide. Your life, your choice whether or not to end it.

The issue here is one of personal choice. If I choose to climb a mountain and get into trouble it's not my choice if a rescuer comes to get me, it's theirs.

Similarly, someone may choose not to wear the gear. That's their choice. If they come off and suffer horrendous injuries it's MY choice, not theirs, to pay for the recovery. I don't blame them because I choose to pick up the pieces, I rejoice in the fact that I live in a society where we still have the right to make our own decisions (to a large degree).

Ragingrob

1st February 2008, 14:44

Actually, I'm a supporter of suicide. Your life, your choice whether or not to end it.

The issue here is one of personal choice. If I choose to climb a mountain and get into trouble it's not my choice if a rescuer comes to get me, it's theirs.

Similarly, someone may choose not to wear the gear. That's their choice. If they come off and suffer horrendous injuries it's MY choice, not theirs, to pay for the recovery. I don't blame them because I choose to pick up the pieces, I rejoice in the fact that I live in a society where we still have the right to make our own decisions (to a large degree).

Really? Ok then. Well I'm sure in most courts if I crashed into you and you died because of being severed in half due to wearing a singlet than I'd still be demanded to pay out to your family and society... So that doesn't really work out, although I could gladly show them your last post and all will be well because it was your choice!

In terms of getting in trouble on a mountain, you KNOW that rescuers will try and save you, even by putting their life at risk. If you live your life thinking that your choices only affect you when in your mind you really know that others' emotions and even lives will also be at stake, then I don't have too much to say...

I'd fully support suicide and the such if it's someone who has absolutely NO family and NO friends and NOONE knows they're alive to start with... But other than that it becomes pretty selfish.

Overall these are just endless opinions anyway, I'm not here to argue, I just wanted to give my opinion that ATGATT is important.

Finn

1st February 2008, 14:47

Well I'm sure in most courts if I crashed into you and you died because of being severed in half due to wearing a singlet than I'd be demanded to pay out to your family and society...

I hate being severed, especially in half.

SPman

1st February 2008, 14:53

It's all good fun until someone loses a war. Then you're hanging upside down from a lamppost.
But your mistress gets to have the same thing as well - or is that just collateral damage?

swbarnett

1st February 2008, 15:12

Really? Ok then. Well I'm sure in most courts if I crashed into you and you died because of being severed in half due to wearing a singlet than I'd still be demanded to pay out to your family and society...
If you caused the accident in the first place then the major contributing factor to the death was not the lack of gear but your actions. Yes, if gear would've helped I would have to share the blame for my death but then so would you.

In terms of getting in trouble on a mountain, you KNOW that rescuers will try and save you, even by putting their life at risk.
Yes, but the choice is still theirs. Even if it is made in advance and I'm aware of it. It does happen that the weather is too bad to fly so the rescuers don't come. That's their choice too. I wouldn't hold it against them.

If you live your life thinking that your choices only affect you when in your mind you really know that others' emotions and even lives will also be at stake, then I don't have too much to say...
I fully accept that my actions affect others but you can't live your life considering others to the exclusion of yourself. I know that those others in my life closest to me want me to be happy and to make my own decisions.

I'd fully support suicide and the such if it's someone who has absolutely NO family and NO friends and NOONE knows they're alive to start with... But other than that it becomes pretty selfish.
It's pretty selfish on the part of the friends and family you mention to want someone to live just because of the impact their death would have on you.

I just wanted to give my opinion that ATGATT is important.
On this point I'd have to agree. My contention is just that you can't force others to think the same and you can't blame non gear wearers for your ACC bill and personal psychological suffering.

Ragingrob

1st February 2008, 15:26

Point taken :2thumbsup

I just don't get the whole suicide thing, like why you'd kill yourself if even just one person cares for you lots!

Anyway, that's probably on the list of stupid topics to not talk about along with religion... sooo :bash: It's been good hearing thought out arguments!

motorbyclist

1st February 2008, 20:02

You're just whining about someone expressing their freedom differently to you.

actually, i never whined about anything

and no-one said you have to listen

gotta wonder why one would go into these ATGATT threads when to complain about their right not to have other bikers not express their concern about them.

it's like the guys who went into the stunting area of this forum not long ago and had a go at the guys who posted up a video of themselves doing stunts

though it does make things a bit more interesting, i really cbf dealing with it, so i'll unsubscribe rather than trying to convince you i never tried to force anyone/you to wear some gear. freedom of speech and freedom to ignore speech. simple.

<img src="http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=83370&d=1201174793">

BAD DAD

1st February 2008, 21:09

Generally I agree and in fact do ride with all of my gear all of the time ( which aint quite the same as "ATGATT" but JUST occasionally I might decide to exercise a micoscopic bit of personal freedom and do otherwise. Worse still, on the odd occasion I might even risk my life and have sex; without a condom. Everyone knows that it is far safer to travel by jumbo jet but NO, I will insist on going by car if it's not too far and during periods of total selfish unreasonable madness I might even go by motorcycle. I did once swim outside the flags and I have used my skillsaw without earmuffs. Another time I drove a car without displaying a WOF, didn't wear a hat and sunscreen, ate four cheeseburgers instead of 5 fruits, chased after a suspected burgler instead of calling the cops, had kids born at home instead of a lovely safe clean hospital.. I think the point is that against all reasonable and well meaning advise I decided to take fate into my own hands, came to no harm and hopefully will live to occssionally break lots more rules and bylaws and disregard well meant advise even though usually I would agree with it. No harm meant and no harm done ( except to myself )

madmal64

2nd February 2008, 16:44