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

[carver]

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

I think we should force more people to do more things

[swbarnett]

think HONESTLY about what was said in the first post and who it will affect.
And think about the repercussions of wearing ATGATT, and who that will affect.
It's not rocket science really.

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

1. Where do we stop?

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

This brings me to my second point:

2. Freedom of choice.

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

3. Mitigation of risk.

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



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

[Spearfish]

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

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

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

[swbarnett]

maybe its time a min standard of protective gear should be compulsory.

Over my dead body!!!

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

[Milts]

Over my dead body!!!

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

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

[swbarnett]

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

I wrote free and that's what I meant.

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

[GOONR]

Over my dead body!!!

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

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

[DEATH_INC.]

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

1. Where do we stop?

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

This brings me to my second point:

2. Freedom of choice.

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

3. Mitigation of risk.

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



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

I still think you are missing the original posters point, what about OTHERS?
You can wear nothing (EEK! and I see that you do wear the gear) but what about the poor buggers that have to pick up the mess? Not just the ambo's/police/firey's but your freinds, families and workmates etc. Surely their choice will be that one takes all reasonable precautions to protect oneself? And if people won't get their shit together and sort it out, then the majority (or noisy minority) will make it become law.
And for the record, I'm no bloody saint either, but I've been there when it's all gone bad and do know what it's like.

[swbarnett]

I still think you are missing the original posters point,

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

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

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

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

what about OTHERS?

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

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



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

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

[Spearfish]

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



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

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

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

[davereid]

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

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

The issue is one of where you draw the line.

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

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

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

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

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

[MSTRS:Me]

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

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

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

[Spearfish]

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

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

[swbarnett]

No-one is saying not to do 'dangerous' things.

Welll, some are saying "don't ride without the gear". This is, in effect, saying "don't do this dangerous thing because I don't like seeing you when things go wring". And there are others that are saying we should not ride in the first place. My main concern is that the extremists don't get the weight of law.

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

But don't say your choice/s don't affect others...

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



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

[MSTRS:Me]

We must all take responsibility for our own decisions -

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