Compulsory ATGATT Yay or Nay

**superman** · 10th February 2011, 10:36

So what is the call on All The Gear All The Time?

Should it be a legislatively controlled action, or should it be every bikers given right to wear shorts/t-shirt on hot days?

Even if it was enforced you'd still end up with people wearing shit gear obviously, much like the helmet laws and seeing people wearing half helmets.

And yes people will say just educate riders instead of law, but as seen in places which don't have helmet laws you still get people who won't wear them.

Just would be interesting to see the KB populations take on it, as it could even be a useful law (much like the helmet law) and maybe drag those dreaded ACC costs down. Plus it's not quite as ridiculous sounding as a high-vis jacket law.

**Swoop** · 10th February 2011, 10:38

Bollocks. Freedom of choice.
SOTG-SOTT.

**Bald Eagle** · 10th February 2011, 10:39

Now that's a can of worms you've opened. Who decides what constitutes compliant gear ?
Not to mention the whole right to choose lobby...

**Bassmatt** · 10th February 2011, 10:41

Originally Posted by Swoop

SOTG-SOTT.

??? (10 char)

**Whynot** · 10th February 2011, 10:41

Originally Posted by superman

So what is the call on All The Gear All The Time?

no way.
what's next? make scooterists and cyclists wear leather?
how about pedestrians?
car drivers to wear helmets?
electronic gps implants to stop people speeding?

**superman** · 10th February 2011, 10:42

Originally Posted by Bald Eagle

Now that's a can of worms you've opened. Who decides what constitutes compliant gear ?
Not to mention the whole right to choose lobby...

CE rated gear is already available for everything including helmets, so it would be the same as how they enforce compliant helmets I guess. CE approved = legal

**superman** · 10th February 2011, 10:44

Originally Posted by Whynot

no way.
what's next? make scooterists and cyclists wear leather?
how about pedestrians?
car drivers to wear helmets?
electronic gps implants to stop people speeding?

Didn't people say the same when helmets became law?

**Swoop** · 10th February 2011, 10:45

Originally Posted by Bassmatt

???

Summertime = some of the gear - some of the time!
"ride to the conditions".

**Whynot** · 10th February 2011, 10:46

Originally Posted by superman

Didn't people say the same when helmets became law?

The helmet law is a little bit easier to enforce ....
and the nanny state is already ruling our lives enough.

**bogan** · 10th February 2011, 10:49

Nay.

Firstly where do you draw the line at ATG, jacket and helmet? gloves? boots? pants? back protector? Some of these will result in a much more uncomfortable ride, and introduce distractions and potentially put the rider at higher risk, big padded black pants are good for open road protection, but a bastard to have on in sunny round town riding.

Far better to avoid crashing entirely, thats where the focus should be.

Also, think about how many other activities are around the same risk/benefit for additional safety gear, lets not start down that slippery slope. Speaking of which, those waterslides are a bloody menace, better put some non-slip padding down at the bottom just in case

**Usarka** · 10th February 2011, 10:50

Originally Posted by superman

CE rated gear is already available for everything including helmets, so it would be the same as how they enforce compliant helmets I guess. CE approved = legal

Only the armour is CE rated not the jacket/pants etc. So can I stick CE armour under my hoodie and be ok??

My boots don't have CE armour, do I have to get a new pair? Jeeze that'll be expensive and also mean half the stock in the shops will need to be ditched. If not how come my boots are ok and my michael^TM jordan basketball boots aren't?

**superman** · 10th February 2011, 10:56

Originally Posted by Whynot

The helmet law is a little bit easier to enforce ....
and the nanny state is already ruling our lives enough.

It's different when we have a socialist health system and we pay for eachothers choices. Someone feels like eating a lot/smoking and we pay for the impeding cancer treatment.

Same if someone chooses to play rugby, or not wear ATGATT riding a bike at over 27 metres per second. Want to change to a pay for yourself health system though and then force only rich people to get treatment, NO! So nanny laws seem to be a must for the situation our country's in IMO.

Choice is of course something important, but in a safety situation surely making people more safe is not something bad. Such as seatbelt and helmet laws have shown.

Do what you want if it doesn't cost me money, if it costs me money then I give a damn. I have to bloody fork out 4 weeks of my wage to pay for just a 250cc bike and car rego.

**Jantar** · 10th February 2011, 10:56

Originally Posted by superman

CE rated gear is already available for everything including helmets, so it would be the same as how they enforce compliant helmets I guess. CE approved = legal

So my leathers would no longer be considered suitable? What about my kevlar jeans with soft armour in the knees and calves?

If there is to be any standard as to what is acceptable and what isn't, then that standard should relate to impact resistance, abrasion resistance, and weather resistance, not just to some armour standard.

**Usarka** · 10th February 2011, 10:58

Originally Posted by superman

Do what you want if it doesn't cost me money, if it costs me money then I give a damn. I have to bloody fork out 4 weeks of my wage to pay for just a 250cc bike and car rego.

Then campaign/vote to have the system changed. ACC is supposed to be a no-fault system.

That line of reasoning bugs me. If it were the way things worked the government should ban mountain bikes and rugby.