Oh they have a chemical imbalance alright. You go to Waitarere beach, you see riders riding shirtless in shorts, about half don't even bother with helmets on the beach. My ex partner's father said he felt the helmet laws were unfair 'because it violated his personal freedom'.
"If you think you can do it, or think you can't do it, you're right." - Henry T Ford
So is it the level of exposure, or the level of danger that determines the risk? That definition is ambiguous.
Other definitions suggest it is the exposure part that is the level of risk. So I wouldn't consider riding the bike an increased risk at all.The likelihood of a negative outcome.
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
You want some advice - lightning strikes once, it does not strike twice!
That's a very ambiguous definition.
"Risk" is more practically defined as the likelihood of an undesireable event.
"Consequence" is defined as the severy of that undesireable event.
Hence, when planning an trip one can weigh up the risk and consequence. High likelihood of an event with minimal consequence is not worth worrying about. Similarly for an unlikely event with a large consquence.
I use this all the time when planning computer outages.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin (1706-90)
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending to much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
"Motorcycling is not inherently dangerous. It is, however, EXTREMELY unforgiving of inattention, ignorance, incompetence and stupidity!" - Anonymous
"Live to Ride, Ride to Live"
Your ex's father is probably from an era when people cared about personal freedom and saw each violation as a step towards the cotton wrapped, flouro clad, homoginised world we now live in.
Riding down the beach in shorts, sheesh, some people cling to cliff faces by their fingertips while others sail mighty oceans in tiny yachts.
Well, this is a relivent argument, equipping yourself with the right gear to do the intended thing, but then I guess the argument is "what is the right gear?"
This again is subject to personal choice and risk evaluation.
What I consider the right equipment for riding my bike other than the legal minimum ( a helmet and sufficient clothing to ensure I am not exposing my genitalia to the masses) is for me to decide, I choose the risk level and enjoy my riding.
To be old and wise, first you must be young and stupid.
Its a bit like paint ball
If you have alot of gear on and you get hit its doesnt hurt as bad.
If you have shorts and t under the overalls you wont get hit as often because you know that paint balls going to sting like a muth@forka.
Only problem is if you fork it up get ready for a welt.
I have evolved as a KB member.Now nothing I say should be taken seriously.
The ACC levy attached to any vehicles registration is NOT the vehicle owners "share" of the required funding ACC needs to provide it's service. Nor was it ever intended to be that owners "share" of that funding.
Only a self centered, egotistical, dickhead .... could believe it is.
The ACC levy is merely an obligatory Government tax ... labeled as such to justify/increase the amount .... and added to all vehicle registrations ...
The fairness of the policy has been ... and will be ... argued Ad nauseam.
When life throws you a curve ... Lean into it ...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks