Protective clothing legislation? [Archive]

Fatt Max

15th January 2009, 11:27

I have been talking to an ex work collegue today who threw up an interesting comment that got me to thinking.

He is saying that there is a campaign among legislators in NZ to enforce the wearing of 'suitable protective clothing, padding or armour' when riding any type and size of motorcycle or moped.

I hav'nt heard this myself and cant say I've seen it discussed in any KB forum so far but I was wondereing if anyone had heard the same. I thought that riding gear was compulsory in northern European countries like Sweeden, Norway etc but cant be sure.

Must admit, after reading the recent 'numbskulls' thread it may be considered a good idea to enforce some kind of rules of that nature but for the life of me I cant see where it is even being considered in NZ.

What do you guys know / think etc?

Qkchk

15th January 2009, 11:31

Sounds just like another 'Your bike is too loud' legislation. How are they going to police it?

However it would be nice to see a stop to those moped riders wearing short skirts/shorts and jandals.

Mully

15th January 2009, 11:33

Mmmm, "suitable" is the kicker for me. Short of pulling everyone over, how does Plod tell (unless they are a biker).

Let Darwin sort it out.

Ixion

15th January 2009, 11:36

I am not aware of any proposals for protective (ie padded) garments.

There is currently some talk about a requirement for riders to wear reflective garments (ie hi-viz vest)

This is much simpler to implement than a requirement for 'protective' gear, because there are already standards in place for hi-viz clothing (ie the law can simply say 'reflective garment satisfying NZ Standard nnn ').

A requirement for 'protective clothing' must either precisely define 'protective' (which is very hard ) ; or a NZ Standard must be promulgated (which could take years). And then there is the problem of getting overseas manufacturers to submit their products for certification to that standard. They won't.

I suspect we might see a hi-viz requirment some time soon.

yungatart

15th January 2009, 12:38

Whilst I am an ATGATT kinda gal, I would really hate to see it become compulsory.
Pity our poor m/c mechanics having to gear up every time they road test some one's bike.

Hitcher

15th January 2009, 12:44

Ban radar detectors. That will fix it.

NZsarge

15th January 2009, 12:46

Sounds just like another 'Your bike is too loud' legislation. How are they going to police it?

However it would be nice to see a stop to those moped riders wearing short skirts/shorts and jandals.

Short skirt wearing moped riders... Bugger, wish there were some of them down these parts.. :yes: :lol:

I can see the angle but again policing it? Nah, would'nt support this legislation.

mstriumph

15th January 2009, 12:47

.................I suspect we might see a hi-viz requirment some time soon.

sheesh - and i look DREADFUL in dayglo .... :crazy:

Quasievil

15th January 2009, 12:55

And then there is the problem of getting overseas manufacturers to submit their products for certification to that standard. They won't.

Good cause we will.

Swoop

15th January 2009, 13:13

Crazy Steve posted recently, that if you don't wear gear you shouldn't get ACC to pay for your fuckup.

It has merit.
Scooterists will disagree, obviously.

vgcspares

15th January 2009, 13:41

I'm not sure how looking like a road repairer is going to jive with the black leather look - we should have flashing lights (a la the Cops) now that more and more twonks in cars are driving with their lights on (would have the added advantage of some dummies pulling out of the way cos they thought you were the Fuzz)

firefighter

15th January 2009, 13:41

I suspect we might see a hi-viz requirment some time soon.

Two words.

Fuck. that.

I'm with Mully. Let Darwin sort it out. That's right up there with wrapping kids up in cotton wool and taking the monkey bars away. Why is it kids are stabbing each other again?

Hailwood

15th January 2009, 13:44

Not for this little black duck......I guess it is a matter of time before more and more rules etc come into force given the current perception of motorcyclists being the curse of the road..(not helped by some muntas and their riding decisions).

I have no problem with protective gear but to hell with the gay glow vest

Badjelly

15th January 2009, 13:47

I have no problem with protective gear but to hell with the gay glow vest

I think I look quite fetching in my black trou, black & red jacket, red helmet and day-glo vest. It mightn't suit you on the Harley, though.

vifferman

15th January 2009, 13:56

While I currently wear the vest attachment thingo on my jacket (to keep the vifferbabe happy), if it becomes compulsory, I may remove it.
Fukkem.

Hailwood

15th January 2009, 14:05

I think I look quite fetching in my black trou, black & red jacket, red helmet and day-glo vest. It mightn't suit you on the Harley, though.

Each to their own mate...but I am not wearing one if its compulsory.

NighthawkNZ

15th January 2009, 14:53

Crazy Steve posted recently, that if you don't wear gear you shouldn't get ACC to pay for your fuckup.

And if it is proven that it wasn't the riders fuck at all... but the cage... (Again don't get me started on ACC...

If was driving along and ran someone over at a crossing causing injuiry then ACC shouldn't pay because the the pedestrian wasn't wearing protective gear or at least hi-vis vest when crossing the road... (yes a piss take)

While we are at it lets just make it a suite of armour... hell ban all vehicles and transportation of all kind... including the horse and cart... I would fall a horse and break my neck quicker than I would on the bike..

but the point being how far will it go? How far do you want to be controlled? and told what you can and can not do ...

If I want to ride my bike in a t-shirt its my skin, my bones my life I am dealing with... not yours... and at the end of the day my risk... you have no right to tell me what I can and can not do with it... none what so ever. Kiwis are worse than sheep and just simply follow along whether its right or wrong and slowly taking away your freedoms that my forefathers died for...

(before the the reps start I wear ATGATT All the gear all the time, I have had my accidents when I was younger in just jeans and that was bad enough. I said to myself then... I'm not doing that again...)

Quasievil

15th January 2009, 15:00

crash helmets should be worn in cars to as head injuries cost the country a fortune.

as if that would happen lol

NighthawkNZ

15th January 2009, 15:06

crash helmets should be worn in cars to as head injuries cost the country a fortune.

Crash helmets, as well neck braces 5 point racing harness and soft rubber foam bumpers that can take 99% of the impact and uses that stored energy to solve the power problem... and because NZ is such a bad place to drive this system would solve our power problem...

90s

15th January 2009, 15:12

I support comulsary wearing of helmets because the evidence is overwhelming that this reduces mortality and serious injury for riders.

There is little conslusive evidence that either would be affected by hi-viz shirts as too many accident classes are not about poor visibility. Even in accidents where this was a factor I am unaware of any evidence this makes a statistical improvement.

Basically the cost-benefit of making this compulsary is not there.

There is only PR value in this for the politicos being seen to "do something".

However, depending on your riding and likely accident profile for your riding and area, you may be the 1 in a 1,000,000 that finds wearing this vest was the factor in avoiding an accident. This is your call, and I have no problem with some of my friends that wear the hi-viz vest (one with light that flash! You know who you are!) But its not for me and won't change the ACC budget or accident rates.

swbarnett

15th January 2009, 15:20

Crazy Steve posted recently, that if you don't wear gear you shouldn't get ACC to pay for your fuckup.

It has merit.
Scooterists will disagree, obviously.
Are you going to stop ACC for car drivers whose heads hit the windscreen because they were not wearing a helmet?

Where will it end?

ynot slow

15th January 2009, 16:59

WTF? Don't let anyone tell(legislate) what to wear re protective apparel,we don't need a law made.Surely common sense should suffice,if you don't want to wear boots but jandals don't come crying to me about the pain etc.

Big Dave

15th January 2009, 17:43

I suspect we might see a hi-viz requirment some time soon.

Instead of addressing the issues. Educating drivers to look etc etc. Impact protection equipment, Rider training, etc etc etc etc etc

You see them now, wearing a flapping florescent garrote over tee shirt and shorts.

Ixion

15th January 2009, 17:47

It gives the appearance of doing something. It is readily apparent to the general public. It has sufficient statistical basis forcredibility. It is easy to explain. It costs the gubbermint nothing. It costs those affected very little. It provides a source of revenue through fines. It does not require complex or contentious legislation. It is not dependent on any outsiders coming to the party. It's a natural.

Big Dave

15th January 2009, 17:53

What 'they' fail to understand - that we all know too well - is that 'I didn't see him' really means 'I didn't look'.

davereid

15th January 2009, 18:13

I support comulsary wearing of helmets because the evidence is overwhelming that this reduces mortality and serious injury for riders.

Here is a question for you. Helmets are overwhelmingly good right ?

What year were they introduced ?

Hint 1 - table attached from official NZ statistics.
Hint 2 - if you can't identify the year from the death statistics, google the paraplegia/tetraplegia statistics. Much easier to pick there.

Trouble is, that helmets DO help with minor knocks and abrasions. But the leather stuff the oldtimers had was great for this too. "Proper" helmets have err, actually, not been as useful as you may have imagined.

At best a helmet may double your chance of survival. But getting on a motorcycle made you 30 times (depending on whos figures you read) more likely to die than driving your Volvo.

The ATGATT game sounds nice, but really the only way to be safe with a motorcycle is to sell it.

1 Free Man

15th January 2009, 18:44

Whilst I am an ATGATT kinda gal, I would really hate to see it become compulsory.
Pity our poor m/c mechanics having to gear up every time they road test some one's bike.
Agree to some extent but whats the diff. Your mechanic has to put on a seat belt if he is road testing you car.

1 Free Man

15th January 2009, 18:56

TLDV8

15th January 2009, 19:37

Agree to some extent but whats the diff. Your mechanic has to put on a seat belt if he is road testing you car.

Cars etc have one type of seat belt cost wise as a rule unlike motorcycle safety gear.

Even safety gear is profit driven in the Australasian market so what might be deemed good gear to meet a government policy would be hard.

Arai XD3 here AU$800+.
The same helmet from the USA delivered AU$478.
How much for a XD3 in New Zealand.

Who here has never ever ridden a motorcycle without full gear from the day they started,not me. (Full gear being a armoured (back/hip/shoulder/forearm/knee) leather one piece or zip together two piece,full face helmet and full length boots and long HD gloves)

I will go back to what i posted in the R/R forum,i think NZ will follow Australia and put up the Registration cost for motorcycles before they enforce what you wear.
The easiest policy to introduce and police is user pays,fines for those who do not,a high viz vest would be easy to enforce all the same.

I payed my rego this week for the DR.

AU$666.10 or over NZ$800
The $666 dollars is around $15 for rego the rest is personal injury payment (a bit like ACC).
Vehicle damage insurance (third party/full insurance) is "extra" on top so you are looking at close to NZ$1000 for rego and a third party damage policy.

Motu

15th January 2009, 20:12

SARGE

15th January 2009, 20:21

hell..i dont even wear a seatbelt in the cage.. grew up on bikes riding sans helmet too..i ride in a ledather jacket and jeans every time i go out.. when i am planning a spirited ride i swap the work boots for some Fox Tracker MX boots but thats the extent of it .. oh.. and i wear titanium gloves for the occasional mirror-ectomy

had a t-shirt a long time ago.. simply stated..

"keep YOUR laws off MY body"

i wouldnt wear a helmet in NZ if it wasnt for all the dipshit drivers .. im fairly confidant in my own abilities but driving for a living i see heaps of cellphone addicted jackasses.. saw one clown today on Queen St PLAYING A FRIGGING NINTENDO behind the wheel in traffic.. then did a u-turn at Mayoral dr and damn near capped a pushy rider

Swoop

15th January 2009, 20:25

While we are at it lets just make it a suite of armour...
Would that be a 3-piece?

If I want to ride my bike in a t-shirt its my skin, my bones my life I am dealing with... not yours...
No problem! Go right ahead!
Just do not expect me or anyone else to pay for your actions and choices.

Naki Rat

16th January 2009, 09:16

More safety gear is totally the wrong approach.They say the biggest incentive for safe driving is a 6 inch steel spike in the centre of the steering wheel - the same is true with motorcycles.The biggest improvement in rider safety would be the removal of safety gear - no helmet,no gloves,T shirt,shorts and Roman sandals (better for gearchanges than jandals.) Send 20 gixer riders around the Coro Loop like that and see how many crash.It high lights the motorcylist's vulnerability,and the very real possibility of getting very really hurt radically changes their approach to riding.That such a method makes a safer rider proves that they are in fact totally unsafe wrapped in cotton wool.

I totally agree :niceone:

My job includes visits to industrial sites and oil installations (including offshore) both of which have safety regulations that are mind boggling. From my observations in these situations the implementation of safety requirements for everything from PPE (safety clothing) to how to go up and down stairs which while being originally well intentioned, gradually desensitises the average worker into a sense of being able to then blame any incident on the failure of someone or something. A flock of safety specialists decend on any mishap so that it then can be fully documented, blame apportioned and more safety guidelines implemented to prevent it reoccurring.

This generates safety literature that runs to volumes that continually grow, and which must be exchanged with other contractors, subcontractors and clients who then incude the relevant safety data of those associated parties in their own "Health, Safety & Environment manual" and so on it goes.

The average worker is then expected to absorb these HSE manuals as part of their employment conditions and sign off to confirm that they have. As further HSE manual updates and safety alerts are issued these must also be absorbed and signed off for as the employers' transfer the responsibility (and liability) of safety over to the masses.

However the lowly worker having now signed over the acceptance of safe work practice is now lulled into a sense of having done their thing for safety and happily heads off to finally get some work done 'now that we've got all that safety stuff over and done with'. But, the HSE geeks have now identified this shortfall in the system so in they come with more paperwork to reinforce the safety message. Before a task is started the job crew must have a 'toolbox meeting' to collectively identify what it is they are intending to accomplish, workflow and equipment required, what hazards they may be exposed to in doing that job and how those hazards are to be eliminated, mitigated or isolated, and what other people and activities will be affected or put at risk by your task. And to make sure the workers' minds haven't been completely numbed by all this they are set the responsibilty of filling in anonymously submitted cards identifying hazardous or commendable actions of individuals which give the HSE geeks further fodder for generating meetings and literature, justifying their own existence.

Am I alone in seeing this safety overkill madness now infiltrating our every activity? :argh:

My point here is that the more that some governing body implements layer upon layer of safety on their underlings, the greater the mental disattachment of those underlings from the actual act of keeping themselves safe. The recurring tone of 'If it becomes law I won't be wearing it' together with the equally counterproductive mindset of 'I'm well clothed so don't have to be as careful' are all too familiar as parallels to the reaction to HSE in the workplace.

Used to be a time here in NZ that if you did something stupid there was a good chance that you were deleted from the gene pool - not really acceptable but we now have a situation that is swung to the other extreme, increasingly lead by the North American and European liability industries.

The problem is how do we find a happy balance?

Katman

16th January 2009, 09:56

Your mechanic has to put on a seat belt if he is road testing you car.

No, he doesn't actually (unless they've changed the ruling recently) - as long as he doesn't exceed 50kph.

portokiwi

16th January 2009, 10:06

I agree with the safety thing. But I dont agree that it has to be sole motorcycle only.
Many of us can not afford some of the gear that is sold.... Or just dont feel right in the gear. Comfort wise.
I use many army/security gear which is just as good as much of the gear being sold in motorcycle shops.
As long as they see you are trying to wear gear that if you full off or crash...(my case hit by a truck):angry: will protect you then you should be covered by ACC.
I think its crazy seeing bikers going realy fast down streets and on the motorway wearing t shirts, no gloves and even shorts.
They if they come off should not be covered by ACC. As they where not trying to be safe. thats my own thoughts.

firefighter

16th January 2009, 10:36

If I want to ride my bike in a t-shirt its my skin, my bones my life I am dealing with... not yours... and at the end of the day my risk... you have no right to tell me what I can and can not do with it... none what so ever. Kiwis are worse than sheep and just simply follow along whether its right or wrong and slowly taking away your freedoms that my forefathers died for...

I could'nt agree more, it is after all YOUR skin, YOUR body. I'm sick of the rediculous rules that come in.
OSH took fire poles out of firestations.......so it is apparently safer to run down stairs now is it? Let people live their lives the way they choose I say.

Crash helmets, as well neck braces 5 point racing harness and soft rubber foam bumpers that can take 99% of the impact and uses that stored energy to solve the power problem... and because NZ is such a bad place to drive this system would solve our power problem...

Funny thing is, 5 point harnesses are ILLEGAL, I fucken kidd you not, somethig to do with the fact you won't bother putting it on properly (I know this as a mate of mine has one, he races his car but as he only has a 5 point harness in it, it's no-longer street legal, so some f-witt cop ticketed him for it)

What 'they' fail to understand - that we all know too well - is that 'I didn't see him' really means 'I didn't look'.

Yes well i'm sure if i'm wearing a dayglow the drivers will bother to look......pfft.

Just like those retard drivers that don't see big red firetrucks with lights and sirens on trying to cross their path yet they are'nt gonna stop 'cause they are'nt fucken paying attention, and you gotta sit and watch and wait for them to drive past or they would have meandered into you! Explain why a dayglow is so good again now IXION when cagers can't even notice a flashing lights, siren and an airhorn?!:blink:

I hear what you are saying buddy but you didn't go on to say where the money is coming from to put you back together when you fuck up on your bike in your Tee and shorts. Do you have a personal hospital for which you pay all of the expences on standby for when you fuck up..

Well I dunno about him but I have medical insurance, so I get fucked in the ass by acc, and i'm covered by my insurance also. I actually believe I should be excempt.
By the way, so what if some of the thousands of tax dollars i've paid actually come back to me? I pay for half of south auckland to sit at home smoking pot and drinking piss!........oh and the islanders that live across the drive from me - I get to pay for them to disturb the whole neigbourhood, pay for their piss, pot, listen to their language, parties and bullshit, so if I get some acc come my way- I think i've earned it!

Would that be a 3-piece?

No problem! Go right ahead!
Just do not expect me or anyone else to pay for your actions and choices.

As above, iv'e paid double with medical insurance and ACC, so I think I should have the right to wear a t- shirt and shorts on my bike should I want to shoot up to the dairy, I don't, but I think i'm entitled to choose.

As are the rest of you.

Remember how we took playgrounds away from kids and replaced them with junk? (i mean real playgrounds, monkey bars etc) what the fuck has that really achieved? I'll tell you what - fat chicken shit kids that's what.

SPman

16th January 2009, 12:36

More safety gear is totally the wrong approach.............................. cotton wool.
Hell yes.
Now I wear Draggin jeans and a mesh jacket over here in summer as concessions to the heat, I feel rather more vulnerable. The boots, gloves and full face stay (ever ridden through a swarm of locusts at speed.......)
Conversely, I also feel more at one with the bike.......
But
Compulsory gear and safety vests - I'd feel more inclined to ride in shorts and T shirt and fuckem!

swbarnett

16th January 2009, 18:13

It has sufficient statistical basis
Is it that HiVis vests save lives or that those that wear them are naturally careful riders?

swbarnett

16th January 2009, 18:55

The gear question has been debated probably countless times before. Take a look at this thread as one example:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=59772

popelli

16th January 2009, 19:12

is the nanny state trying re reassert new zealands position in the world as the poland of the south pacific

NighthawkNZ

16th January 2009, 19:13

I could agree with the sentiment, but only on the proviso that I can exercise my right to refuse to contribute for your medical treatment and rehabilitation.

I don't expect any one too pay for my medical treatment and rehabilitation I have always paid for my own medical care... (I have private insurance) and have never ever made a ACC claim in my entire life (so why should I have to pay for your treatment and every other fucker out there which I am...)

maybe I don't want it either... again my choice...

As I said I ride with ATGATT (but thats my choice) and always will, but the point is it should be my choice.

MDR2

16th January 2009, 21:24

Maybe a campaign like the one in aus. Run some of the ads that they had playing on the tv when i was in melbourne last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=448OzeZmL0M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=448OzeZmL0M

They dedicated huge billboard ads to ATGATT type displays etc.

McJim

16th January 2009, 21:31

Here is a question for you. Helmets are overwhelmingly good right ?

What year were they introduced ?

Hint 1 - table attached from official NZ statistics.
Hint 2 - if you can't identify the year from the death statistics, google the paraplegia/tetraplegia statistics. Much easier to pick there.

Trouble is, that helmets DO help with minor knocks and abrasions. But the leather stuff the oldtimers had was great for this too. "Proper" helmets have err, actually, not been as useful as you may have imagined.

At best a helmet may double your chance of survival. But getting on a motorcycle made you 30 times (depending on whos figures you read) more likely to die than driving your Volvo.

The ATGATT game sounds nice, but really the only way to be safe with a motorcycle is to sell it.

Looking at the stats I think the correlation is more in line with the acceleration power and max speed of the bikes. It's a lot easier to get kill yourself with 120 hp than it is with 60.

Maybe the answer is to limit roadgoing bikes to 60hp?

:Pokey:

That would increase the value of my bike too! :rofl:

AD345

16th January 2009, 23:01

AD345

16th January 2009, 23:13

And while I'm at it...

Those of you tha agree with these general sentiments:

but only on the proviso that I can exercise my right to refuse to contribute for your medical treatment and rehabilitation.

Get over it.

Think of all the myriad single issue groups (ALAC, ASH,etc), people with their own hobby horses (people that disdain loud music fer example) not to mention a reasonable percentage of the population that ain't bloody thrilled with motorcycling AT ALL who would just lovvve a chance to line up and not pay for any ACC cover for YOU.

Gear or no bloody gear

Bullitt

16th January 2009, 23:57

Im against compulsory gear but even more strongly against compulsory vests. It probably would reduce the number of accidents as Id have to seriously consider whether I kept riding if I was forced to wear one.

Harnesses are illegal in cars (AFAIK 3 point is illegal too) partially because theyre time consuming to put on. Partially because you cant turn around to look behind you.

NighthawkNZ

17th January 2009, 00:57

Tell me do smokers pay higher ACC because they smoke... they could have a heart attack caused by smoking, and while driving take out a line of motorcyclists and three cages... Again if I cause an accident I am expected to pay for it... it shouldn't matter if I am riding a motorcycle or am in a cage... but no we pay higher ACC... and then I have to pay ACC even if I have private insurance... why is that...

As for vests, its been proven that in reality they make no difference, especially around town when you have a continuous change of visual movement contacts and multitudes of colour... Many people see the black and darker colours before lighter colours, sub-uconsciousily the brain sees black as a threatening colour and will pick it out first...

I am more worried about the blond doing her make up, or the fuck-wit on the cell phone, mum yelling at the kids to shut the fuck up, dad changing the radio station or CD, some young boy racer thinking he knows how to handle his car with his uncertified modified suspension, the wanker thinking that he can over take that truck where I wouldn't even do that on the bike... the tail-gating wankers, the kid chasing his ball onto the road, the red light runners... and the list goes on and on... the vests aren't really going to save you really...

As I have said before... on many bikes if you can see the vest its to bloody late... fairing blocking the view from the front, top boxes and luggage from the rear... and if you are seeing it from the side I hope you have already fucken well stopped... But those that wear them if they fell safer then good on them... If we were all made to were them than it gets worse and we will simply blend back into the background... same as if all cars were driving with lights on during the day... the bikes will just blend in to the background again... At the moment if you see a light on a vehicle during the day 99% chance its a bike... but what if all vehicles had lights on... you wouldn't know again and proof has been shown that daylight running lights in Europe are bad for drivers in general on there eyes...

We have all seen the stats, we all know motorcycling is a higher risk... we ain't that stupid, and we all (well most) take the steps to minimise the risk to our-self to the best of our ability. Yes we all make fuck ups, and most of the time we are lucky to get away with it.

MDR2

17th January 2009, 09:47

Health issues related to smoking would be considered a gradual process. and as a result not considered an 'accident' . ACC isn't there for smokers. Thats what the public health system/private insurance is for.

Having had a few falls both on road and off road, I can ateast, having the wind knocked out of you sucks, can't be helped though, all part and parcel of slamming into ashphalt, much the same as torn ligaments and muscles are hard to avoid as your arms legs and head are thrown about and collect every friggen possible object about, as I say, can't be helped. Unless you keep it butter side up :)

Friction burns sting for a day or so, but i'd sooner suffer a few days discomfort then months/years worth of skin grafting and having some dude in a white gowen and a wire brush clean my wounds.

This is why I wear my gear.

I thank the powers that be that I have a right to either wear it or not. And while I shake my head at people that don't wear it, it is their choice. I'd certainly never waste my breath on asking/telling anyone they should be wearing the correct gear because im sure, just like me they weigh up all the possibilitys and chances they will be taking every time they straddle their bikes.

Legislation is not the way. Education is. Be it by shock advertising or learning from your mistakes.

Starky307

17th January 2009, 10:20

Tell me do smokers pay higher ACC because they smoke... they could have a heart attack caused by smoking

Have you not seen the amount of money that is generated by the tax that is added to a pack of smokes, this all goes into the "fund" which helps run our country and in part ACC.

Starky307

17th January 2009, 10:24

I have been talking to an ex work collegue today who threw up an interesting comment that got me to thinking.

He is saying that there is a campaign among legislators in NZ to enforce the wearing of 'suitable protective clothing, padding or armour' when riding any type and size of motorcycle or moped.

It appears that this thread has been hijacked by a bunck of ACC lovers and haters and nothing conclusive to answer your question yes or no.

There are some groups trying to reward those who choose to wear sensible clothing while riding and then reward them. I hope this helps you Fatt Max and to everyone else, get texting and try to win some free gas for yourself and the person you are reporting.

Check out this link (http://www.franklin.govt.nz/CouncilServices/RoadingandTransport/RoadSafety/tabid/946/Default.aspx).

Road Guardian

17th January 2009, 10:38

Harnesses are illegal in cars (AFAIK 3 point is illegal too) partially because they're time consuming to put on. Partially because you cant turn around to look behind you.

Nope, not quiet true.

Anyone in a car can install a harness (whether its a 3 point, 4 point or 5 five point), they just need to get the harness installed correctly, and they have get a low volume vehicle certificate, and display it on the vehicle and have it renewed every year. + you need bucket seats.

Yes they are a pain in the arse to put on, and to a degree you cant turn around to see behind you.

Bullitt

17th January 2009, 11:10

Thats not right.

The only way you can have harnesses in a road car are if you have a motorsport authority card or theyre OEM fitmet. If I wanted to put harnesses in a regular car I couldnt do it unless I was willing to regularly race it and do all the other modifications that requires.

I have to rush out now but Ill find the legislation later.

NighthawkNZ

17th January 2009, 11:49

Health issues related to smoking would be considered a gradual process. and as a result not considered an 'accident' . ACC isn't there for smokers. Thats what the public health system/private insurance is for.

Have you not seen the amount of money that is generated by the tax that is added to a pack of smokes, this all goes into the "fund" which helps run our country and in part ACC.

Like i said the heart attack while caused by smoking is a different health issue, the actual aftermath of the accident s/he caused would have to be covered by ACC...

Because they are a higher risk of heart attack when on the road the are a higher risk for all..

Lord Derosso

17th January 2009, 22:28

A few members have commented on the gear worn by scooter riders and I have seen many riding with little protection around Wellington. Yes, there are some very attractive ladies riding them but I still remember that advt someone posted a year or so back showing what happens to their butts and back skin when they fall off. However it gets worse. Mid week I spotted a guy with no gloves, a teeshirt and bare feet and with a pillion on the back. Perhaps I am envious because I lose 2 litres of water per 10kms when wearing my old super heavy leather jacket but I cant help thinking what would happen if that guy needed to stop in a hurry and what sort of person would be getting on the back of a scooter with someone whom obviously doesnt care about himself.

Pixie

18th January 2009, 10:59

Starky307

18th January 2009, 19:48

Like i said the heart attack while caused by smoking is a different health issue, the actual aftermath of the accident s/he caused would have to be covered by ACC...

Because they are a higher risk of heart attack when on the road the are a higher risk for all..

Your right, and that is why they pay for it in the large amount of tax within the price of cigarettes, it is almost a sort of user pays. Acc is not kept afloat by tax paying citizens, it is (well almost) kept afloat by the levies placed on us road going motorcyclists, people who buy alcohol, cigarettes, petrol etc etc.

What I am trying to say is that they do pay for their choice.

Please note i am not condoning smoking in any way shape or form but just adding another side o your comments.

Lord Derosso

18th January 2009, 21:37

You were probably at more risk of an accident losing the 2 litres of water and therefore having your mental faculties compromised by a hydration deficit,than the scooterists.

The motorcycle cops in hot countries don't wear "safety" gear for this reason.

Two litres was obviously a joke but since I have the VN with a full windscreen I have noticed I sweat a lot more so I have been drinking a pint of water before riding, and leave the leathers open halfway. Its just on hot days in the endless heavy stop start traffic its a problem. One of my aims before next summer is to find a decent light armoured jacket but will have to do with the old heavy leathers due to other priorities, and it still does the job perfectly. I use to ride in teeshirts etc on bikes in summer in the far north as it was just too hot but got stung badly a few times by bees so tended to wear hunting jackets or similar. As for the overseas cops, I remember CHIPS and they just worn short sleeved shirts, open helments and dinky gloves. Good boots though from memory.

Didnt they ride Kawasaki 1000's ?

90s

20th January 2009, 10:15

Here is a question for you. Helmets are overwhelmingly good right ? .... At best a helmet may double your chance of survival.

Double chance of survival ... this is what is called overwhelming statistical confirmation.
I'll take a doubling of my survival odds thanks.

You will not be able to demonstrate a statistical effect of this magnitude by any other gear ammendment on bikes - similar to the improvements in survivability made to car drivers by seatbelts.

Avoiding accidents by training and other means would have a better effect though of course on our actual safety, but is nigh impossible to prove causation. Therefore politicos are not interested - they like high viz populist action, such as "these bright shirts must have some results".

Badjelly

20th January 2009, 10:36

As for vests, its been proven that in reality they make no difference, especially around town when you have a continuous change of visual movement contacts and multitudes of colour... Many people see the black and darker colours before lighter colours, sub-uconsciousily the brain sees black as a threatening colour and will pick it out first...

Who has proven this and where can I get more info about it?

PS: Don't tell me to Google it. I have, and I get pages of sites telling me high-visibility clothing is a good thing.

davereid

20th January 2009, 16:14

Double chance of survival ... this is what is called overwhelming statistical confirmation.
I'll take a doubling of my survival odds thanks.

You will not be able to demonstrate a statistical effect of this magnitude by any other gear ammendment on bikes

Actually, I can't demonstrate ANY statistical effect of helmets on survivability of a major motorcycle accident. Thats why I published the chart, as I don't think it was represented in the NZ data.

Overseas data seems to show some improvement of outcomes, depending on what you read. Or maybe it doesnt.

The only thing we can all agree on is that riding a motorcycle is many, many times more dangerous than driving a car.

Do you accept that the "majority" has the right to ban "risky" behavior by others because it might cost them money ?

Then, if you understand that the safest motorcycle and rider is still incredibily dangerous when compared to the safest car, you must advocate the banning of the motorcycle .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For my money, I don't accept that it gives other the right to ban things I do.

I deliberately, and in an informed manner take risks. I do it for fun. My motorcycle is transport. So is the bus. I CHOOSE to ride my motorcycle.

On the bright side, I live at the end of 7km of rural road. On a sunny day, once I have turned off the main road, I take my helmet off, and putt quietly along, enjoying the sights, the smells and the wind in my hair.

Dangerous stuff. To think I would risk it, just for enjoyment. Weird.

90s

22nd January 2009, 12:25

The only thing we can all agree on is that riding a motorcycle is many, many times more dangerous than driving a car.

Do you accept that the "majority" has the right to ban "risky" behavior by others because it might cost them money ?

Then, if you understand that the safest motorcycle and rider is still incredibily dangerous when compared to the safest car, you must advocate the banning of the motorcycle

This does not follow at all - in public policy the cost-benefit analysis allows for risks (ie. how many motorcyclists will be killed and the associated costs) against the benefits. This is why recently a minister here was saying that maybe bicyle helmets could be made optional - in accidents more cyclists will die, but the benefits elsewhere in the region of reduced cardio-vasular disease if many more people cycled would outweight this. This is not an argument that needs address that all cyclists without helmets would be more likely to be injured or not.

Currently I am waiting to have a bolt through my knee as part of a sporting injury. Although this is a large ACC cost the costs of a less-fit population would outweigh short-term savings.

I would never advocate the banning of the motorcycle. I've been riding them over 20 yrs and will continue to do so. But I will encourage sensible legislation that will make the roads safer for myself, for noobs and fools who know no better, and other road users. Wearing helmets will help in this. But I will only support legislation where the scientific rather than emotional or "common sense" evidence is clear.

You might say its hard to value human life. Actually my local council in its cost-benefit analysis or making changes to a dangerous corner put the figure at $24,000 - less than you might imagine.