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

[swbarnett]

There's often a wide gulf between what someone might say they're prepared to do and the reality of feeding and wiping the arse of someone else 24/7.

Just as there's often a wide gulf between someone blightely saying the decision of how much commitment a carer gives to them is the carer's to make and the sudden bitterness discovered by the injured person come the day that that commitment becomes too much for the carer.

Totally agree. We've also admitted to each other that we don't know what that choice would be if we had to make it. Would I feel bitter if I needed help and it was not forthcoming? Given the main reason I'm married in the first place is to be in a position to ensure the happiness of my wife I would hope not. I won't know for sure until it happens.

[MSTRS:Me]

Totally agree. We've also admitted to each other that we don't know what that choice would be if we had to make it. Would I feel bitter if I needed help and it was not forthcoming? Given the main reason I'm married in the first place is to be in a position to ensure the happiness of my wife I would hope not. I won't know for sure until it happens.

Thing is, as you have said re your wearing of gear, that you take active steps to mitigate injury. Presumably because you wouldn't want your wife to have to do more in caring for you if you are injured.
That is all that 'sensible' motorcyclists can do, along with riding sensibly. Short of not riding at all.

[swbarnett]

Not to mention the carer could face charges of 'Failing to provide...' if they choose not to help, nor arrange for someone else to do so.

This has to be the worst law ever put on the books. Offering help is a tennet of a caring society. Enforcing it in law just proves that the society we live in is not as cring as we thought.

We're so far off track now, that this thread is a joke. I can't understand why people insist on complicating what is a very simple statement.

Calling a stranger selfish for their personal choice of not wearing gear is not a simple statement. It opens up a whole raft of social and cultrul issues.

Taking out the rights, wrongs and indifferences - the statement that what you do affects others, stands as a truth all by itself.

This has never been in dispute. It's the responsibility for that effect that is in dispute.

[MSTRS:Me]

T

This has never been in dispute. It's the responsibility for that effect that is in dispute.

Ask yourself one thing. Who started it? That person bears the 'responsibility'...
Everyone else down the line only bears responsibility for what they do in response, and I'll guarantee they didn't ask to be put in that position.

[swbarnett]

, it's selfish to head off and do your thing with the attitude of "FTW I'll do what I want".

Is it not selfish to enforce our own morals and fears on to others?

As a rider I choose to minimise risk in all the ways I can. ATGATT is only one strand of the process.

I agree that the gear is a very good idea. However, if you really want to minimise the risk why do you ride? Or drive for that mater? Everybody has their own personal risk level and we don't have the right to force others out of theirs (be it by law or social pressure), up or down.

[swbarnett]

Ask yourself one thing. Who started it? That person bears the 'responsibility'...
Everyone else down the line only bears responsibility for what they do in response, and I'll guarantee they didn't ask to be put in that position.

Yes, the person not wearing the gear started the chain of events. However, anyone along that chain could've chosen to stop the cascade, the first responder could have let them be, they could have chosen not to start this thread, I could have chosen to stay out of the argument, you could have chosen not to respond.

We all bear the responsibility for our decisions. The rider bears the responsibility for their injuries that could have been avoided with good gear, the first responder bears the responsibility for the decision to stop and help, and so on ...

And I bear full responsibility for putting unpopular ideas and possibly losing a lot of supporters in the process.

Nobody asks to be put in this situation (or at least most of us). I hope I never have to make that choice. However, if I do it's my choice to make and I'll not let the downed rider take that away from me. Even if I don't like the outcome of my decision it's still mine.

[swbarnett]

Thing is, as you have said re your wearing of gear, that you take active steps to mitigate injury. Presumably because you wouldn't want your wife to have to do more in caring for you if you are injured.
That is all that 'sensible' motorcyclists can do, along with riding sensibly. Short of not riding at all.

My decision to wear gear actually has nothing to do with my wife. It's just something that I've always done because it seemed sensible to me. What constitutes gear for me has changed a lot over the years. I only purchased my first pair of armoured trousers 2 years ago because I needed some new rain pants and thought "why not?". Even now I don't always wear them (mostly in summer when I over-heat). My wife doesn't even own a piar. She's had a couple of major crashes in jeans with no ill effects that armoured trousers would've prevented so she can't see the need. I have no problem with this as it's her choice.

I actually agree with what you say about what a 'sensible' motorcyclist can do. The problem comes when we try to impose our sense of what is 'sensible' upon those with a different view. They have a right to their beliefs the same as us even if we disagree with them. Someone that believes motorcycles should be banned has no right to stop us riding just because they believe it's a bad idea.

[MSTRS:Me]

...They have a right to their beliefs....

Of course. But they should be under no illusion as to who it affects...segueing right back to the point of this thread.

[MarkH]

I actually agree with what you say about what a 'sensible' motorcyclist can do. The problem comes when we try to impose our sense of what is 'sensible' upon those with a different view. They have a right to their beliefs the same as us even if we disagree with them. Someone that believes motorcycles should be banned has no right to stop us riding just because they believe it's a bad idea.

That is the main reason I don't like the idea of legislation for gear - there is too much room to expand on the requirements and make it really hard to be legal.

Helmet & gloves would be fine, but then full leathers even in Summer would be too darned hot - I'd rather it be a good idea rather than a legal requirement so I could make do with armoured jeans and hope for the best when it is too hot to wear my leather pants. Sometimes you decide to ride wearing comfortable walking shoes because you know you are going to have to walk several blocks - even though you realise that proper riding boots would offer you better protection. I always wear what I consider the minimum protective gear, but I don't want the government legislating that I have to wear full leathers, back protector, certified boots, gloves, helmet, fluro vest - so I can ride for 2 minutes to pick up a pizza.

[rastuscat]

Most days at work I have a conversation with someone about the seatbelt ticket I am writing them.

Almost always the conversation features the "Its my personal choice" style issue.

It's fairly easy to counter. The taxpayer (TP) pays for the ambulance, the A&E, the cosmetic surgeon reconstructing the face. Society covers the cost of the individuals stupidity.

So, actually, safety gear is both an individual choice and a collective responsibility.

It'd be nice if someone could opt out of the system e.g. wear no gloves, bin and get a hand injury, pay for your own hand treatment. Now, THAT is personal choice.

So there.

[Spearfish]

Most days at work I have a conversation with someone about the seatbelt ticket I am writing them.

Almost always the conversation features the "Its my personal choice" style issue.

It's fairly easy to counter. The taxpayer (TP) pays for the ambulance, the A&E, the cosmetic surgeon reconstructing the face. Society covers the cost of the individuals stupidity.

So, actually, safety gear is both an individual choice and a collective responsibility.

It'd be nice if someone could opt out of the system e.g. wear no gloves, bin and get a hand injury, pay for your own hand treatment. Now, THAT is personal choice.

So there.

Yeah but open face and German pecker-head style helmets are just to damn cool with board shorts and asics.
50% of bikes going over the auck harbour bridge this summer were riding "summer style" but I guess commuting with thousands of careful auck drivers is much safer than the higher risk, knee down, chasing the dragon around the coro loop runs.

[swbarnett]

Most days at work I have a conversation with someone about the seatbelt ticket I am writing them.

Almost always the conversation features the "Its my personal choice" style issue.

It's fairly easy to counter. The taxpayer (TP) pays for the ambulance, the A&E, the cosmetic surgeon reconstructing the face. Society covers the cost of the individuals stupidity.

So, actually, safety gear is both an individual choice and a collective responsibility.

It'd be nice if someone could opt out of the system e.g. wear no gloves, bin and get a hand injury, pay for your own hand treatment. Now, THAT is personal choice.

So there.

I was wondering when this was going to come up. I say again, where does it stop? Have you seen the movie "Surrogates"? An OK movie but the best part was its' illustration of a society where noone ever leaves the home and lives are lived via robot surrogates. I can't think of anything worse. This is what you're advocating when you enforce laws that save people from themselves. No government of a free society has the right to inact such laws.

And as to the financial cost of not wearing the gear or a seatbelt. As a gear/seatbelt wearer I am more than willing to bear that cost as to do otherwise would leave us with one of two outcomes - either we end up in a truly authoritarian society totally devoid of free will or we end up with a group of people opting out and being left in a condition that becomes vastly more of a burden on society than the cost of fixing them in the first place.

If we allow restrictions on ACC and other forms of public funded healthcare based on "unacceptable risk" where do we draw the line? Many here seem to think the line lies with not wearing the gear when riding. What about riding in the first place? Many in society seem to think that motorcycling is a dangerous, irresponsible activity. Should we listen to them and remove ACC from all motorcycle casualties? What about cycling in Auckland traffic? What about adventure sports? Mountain climbing? Hunting? Just asking to be shot carrying a gun.

I am not God. My view of what contitutes a stupid, dangerous act is not an absolute. I do not claim to speak for anyone but myself when I talk about the level of risk I am willing to accept in my daily life. From what you say it is clear that you do. Are you claiming to be omniscient? Is your personal view of "acceptable risk" an absolute that all the rest of us must adhere to? Of course not. This is why we must not impose our own risk level on others.

[Grubber]

I have spent some time reading through this thread and have made a couple of posts myself.
It appears to me that the biggest issue seems to be that one or maybe 2 on the outside want to choose not to wear protective gear. The argument seems to be more for the "right" to choose rather than the "i just don't like wearing gear".
It all seems a bit odd to me that the "right" to choose can impair ones judgement so much, as i have no idea why someone would want to ride or for that matter undertake a seriously dangerous occupation without taking all the precautions to stay alive to some degree.
I've not yet seen anyone jump from a plane without a parachute.
To use the analogy that anyone at home (loved ones left behind etc) no the score sounds like bollocks to me. Does anyone believe for one minute that a major catastrophe would not effect them in anyway, even though i hear you say 'we have discussed this" i feel putting family and friends through this needlessly is possibly the most selfish thing you could do.
Lastly....what the hell is wrong with chucking on some gear. It's not that hard.

[Berries]

I have spent some time reading through this thread and have made a couple of posts myself.
It appears to me that the biggest issue seems to be that one or maybe 2 on the outside want to choose not to wear protective gear. The argument seems to be more for the "right" to choose rather than the "i just don't like wearing gear".
It all seems a bit odd to me that the "right" to choose can impair ones judgement so much, as i have no idea why someone would want to ride or for that matter undertake a seriously dangerous occupation without taking all the precautions to stay alive to some degree.

Now we’re going round in circles. I have never worn ATG because in all my years riding I have never owned ATG. I have also never fallen off. If I was of the view that crashing is inevitable then perhaps I would wear more protection. But it isn’t, so I don’t. And I resent people telling me what to do based on their experiences of falling off. Nothing personal, but you know, piss off. Your view of "some degree" just differs to mine, that's all.

I've not yet seen anyone jump from a plane without a parachute.

Because you would die. Hardly a good comparison. If you ride a bike buck naked and crash you might die, you might not, it depends on a lot of factors which are within your control. Gravity isn’t.

Having said that, it is scientifically possible to jump without a parachute and survive if you can match your angle of fall with that of a long smooth piece of land, like a ski slope for example. Just needs someone with the balls to prove it.

[Katman]

I've not yet seen anyone jump from a plane without a parachute.

That is soooo yesterday.