Ordering a helmet internationally?

[swbarnett]

Well you've certainly confirmed a few suspicions about attitudes.............

Do tell...


My view on ACC is that it exists primarily as a no-fault system to protect our personal freedoms. What m/c gear we choose to wear is one of those freedoms (helmet included but that's another story). There are plenty of riders in "full" gear that are at a greater risk of becoming a cost to ACC than those with no gear. Better to be riding naked with your head screwed on than covered in cotton-wool without a clue.


BTW: I am ATGATT with the exception that I don't wear back or chest protector, air-bag jacket or Hi-Viz. And I don't always wear armoured trousers.

[Robert Taylor]

Do tell...


My view on ACC is that it exists primarily as a no-fault system to protect our personal freedoms. What m/c gear we choose to wear is one of those freedoms (helmet included but that's another story). There are plenty of riders in "full" gear that are at a greater risk of becoming a cost to ACC than those with no gear. Better to be riding naked with your head screwed on than covered in cotton-wool without a clue.


BTW: I am ATGATT with the exception that I don't wear back or chest protector, air-bag jacket or Hi-Viz. And I don't always wear armoured trousers.

Certainly yes there will be an element of " I have all the gear on and Im bulletproof ''. But it personally makes me cringe when ( for example) I see schoolkids riding around on scooters in short sleeves, sandals, shorts and bare hands. And as I stated previously you may well be riding around near naked and be aware of yourself observing a need for a big safety margin, BUT that is not enough when you have a huge percentage of car drivers that give motorcycles little quarter. Or, you may have say a sudden front tyre deflation and you falloff. So accidents that happen in such ways impact on EVERYONES ACC levies, and a failure to observe a sensible level of protective gear usage impacts even further on a cost to ACC.
That in itself is an encroachment on what you term as freedom. I.e I and many others would like to be relatively free of the level of ACC levies we pay because we are subsidising needless higher levels of injury because of a lack of regard for personal safety. Moreover its very much a ''she'll be right attitude'' fed by this ''no fault'' system. Someones ''free lunch'' on the system is being paid for by others.
The Bell helmets ad in the 70s was so perceptive ''If youve got a $10 head wear a $10 helmet''.

[mossy1200]

Certainly yes there will be an element of " I have all the gear on and Im bulletproof ''. But it personally makes me cringe when ( for example) I see schoolkids riding around on scooters in short sleeves, sandals, shorts and bare hands. And as I stated previously you may well be riding around near naked and be aware of yourself observing a need for a big safety margin, BUT that is not enough when you have a huge percentage of car drivers that give motorcycles little quarter. Or, you may have say a sudden front tyre deflation and you falloff. So accidents that happen in such ways impact on EVERYONES ACC levies, and a failure to observe a sensible level of protective gear usage impacts even further on a cost to ACC.
That in itself is an encroachment on what you term as freedom. I.e I and many others would like to be relatively free of the level of ACC levies we pay because we are subsidising needless higher levels of injury because of a lack of regard for personal safety. Moreover its very much a ''she'll be right attitude'' fed by this ''no fault'' system. Someones ''free lunch'' on the system is being paid for by others.
The Bell helmets ad in the 70s was so perceptive ''If youve got a $10 head wear a $10 helmet''.

I have a $4 head but I cant find a helmet that's tight enough to call mine yet.

[swbarnett]

Certainly yes there will be an element of " I have all the gear on and Im bulletproof ''. But it personally makes me cringe when ( for example) I see schoolkids riding around on scooters in short sleeves, sandals, shorts and bare hands. And as I stated previously you may well be riding around near naked and be aware of yourself observing a need for a big safety margin, BUT that is not enough when you have a huge percentage of car drivers that give motorcycles little quarter. Or, you may have say a sudden front tyre deflation and you falloff. So accidents that happen in such ways impact on EVERYONES ACC levies, and a failure to observe a sensible level of protective gear usage impacts even further on a cost to ACC.
That in itself is an encroachment on what you term as freedom. I.e I and many others would like to be relatively free of the level of ACC levies we pay because we are subsidising needless higher levels of injury because of a lack of regard for personal safety. Moreover its very much a ''she'll be right attitude'' fed by this ''no fault'' system. Someones ''free lunch'' on the system is being paid for by others.
The Bell helmets ad in the 70s was so perceptive ''If youve got a $10 head wear a $10 helmet''.

This is all very sensible on the surface and, in an ideal world, we would all be ATGATT¹. However, in the real world we are not all the same. One person's idea of a "sensible level of protective gear" is not the same as another's (even among those in the know). What worries me is that, in the name of reducing cost², our freedom to be individuals is being irrevocably eroded. It's not too much of a stretch to see a time in the not too distant future when motorcycles are out-lawed for the same reasons you put above.



¹How boring that would be.

²Of course the real reason our levies are so high has nothing to do with the real m/cycle ACC cost

[Robert Taylor]

This is all very sensible on the surface and, in an ideal world, we would all be ATGATT¹. However, in the real world we are not all the same. One person's idea of a "sensible level of protective gear" is not the same as another's (even among those in the know). What worries me is that, in the name of reducing cost², our freedom to be individuals is being irrevocably eroded. It's not too much of a stretch to see a time in the not too distant future when motorcycles are out-lawed for the same reasons you put above.



¹How boring that would be.

²Of course the real reason our levies are so high has nothing to do with the real m/cycle ACC cost

Yes that's possible, especially if we don't self regulate. Its a conundrum, that much is clear.

[Berries]

Yes, but would other road users be more careful for YOUR safety if you were silly enough to ride in shorts and jandals?

I doubt that what I am wearing is a factor in the thoughts of any other road user, apart from other bike riders who think I look a fool either because I am wearing more protective gear than they think is necessary or a fool for wearing less than they think necessary.

I will personally carry on using common sense, as much protective gear as possible and taking nothing for granted, with respect for other road users.

Wholeheartedly agree but with one small change. I will personally carry on using common sense, as much protective gear as I feel happy with and taking nothing for granted, with respect for other road users. It is all down to a personal risk assessment, you've done yours, I've done mine, and the school kid has done his. As long as they don't become a statistic why should we be concerned? We should be more concerned with those who do become statistic, the level of clothing is a secondary factor.

[T.W.R]

It really boils down to decency & respect for ones self and others, If a rider can afford a bike worth thousands of dollars then surely they have the brain capacity to include protection to be able to continue enjoying what the bike offers; Bikes offer no form of protection by themselves & the chumps that dice with possible injury or maiming aren't doing themselves any favours & obviously haven't endured the pain involved when things go wrong (and inevitably they always will somewhere along the line).
What was it the Hurt report (US) & Maids report (UK) 75% of accident involve other vehicles & 4times more likely to be fatal by comparison to other vehicles. And funnily enough 2/3 of accident involving other vehicles (ie cars etc) no form of avoidance was done by the other vehicle.. so doesn't matter whether your in fluro etc or plain black they just don't see you...but in saying that bikes with white frontal area were more involved & black clad riders were a small percentage. And good old plain Leather is the best abrasive resistant material.

[swbarnett]

Yes that's possible, especially if we don't self regulate. Its a conundrum, that much is clear.

Self-regulation is good but only applicable to a point. We have to be careful to not over do it. If we go too far we end up doing the anti-bike zealot's job for them. Even more people will be deterred from riding because it's seen as too dangerous.

[swbarnett]

Bikes offer no form of protection by themselves

On the contrary. To a skilled rider bikes offer the same level of protection as a car (and often more). It's called the ability to avoid having an accident in the first place.

& obviously haven't endured the pain involved when things go wrong (and inevitably they always will somewhere along the line).

That attitude is just asking for it. No accident is inevitable.

[haydes55]

Just to throw it out there, if I was riding in jandals and bare hands I would be a damn site more careful than I would if I had my boots and gloves on. Perhaps the opposite is true, perhaps it is all the ATGATT aficionados who think they are safe who are crashing and impacting on ACC levies?

If I was riding in jandals, shirtless and shorts. I would ride exactly the same as when I wear all my gear. Only a future statistic will ever ride less safe than the safest they can. No matter what you wear a crash can kill you. A crash naked could result in less injuries than a crash in full gear.

It's not safety gear OR safe riding. It's both. All the time.

[T.W.R]

On the contrary. To a skilled rider bikes offer the same level of protection as a car (and often more). It's called the ability to avoid having an accident in the first place.

So you know more than the people that compiled the report then huh? and BTW you're quoting the riders ability, that has nothing to do with the bike

That attitude is just asking for it. No accident is inevitable.

Yet again the figures compiled say otherwise

[swbarnett]

So you know more than the people that compiled the report then huh? and BTW you're quoting the riders ability, that has nothing to do with the bike

Yet the rider's skill would be useless without the inate qualities of the machine that make accident avoidance possible. It's a combination of the two.

Yet again the figures compiled say otherwise

No, they don't. It is impossible for statistics to show that it is inevitable that a given rider will have an accident. That would take a crystal ball and is beyond the realm of statistics.

[T.W.R]

Yet the rider's skill would be useless without the inate qualities of the machine that make accident avoidance possible. It's a combination of the two.

make your mind up what you're saying, and clearly read what you're quoting in the 1st place
An inate object is exactly what a motorcycle is without a rider at the controls, thats why the quote was "Bikes offer no form of protection by themselves"
You could have an experienced rider on a neglected bike & an inexperienced rider on a brand new perfectly set up bike put them in exactly the same scenario and the results would speak for them selves...I know which I'd be backing

No, they don't. It is impossible for statistics to show that it is inevitable that a given rider will have an accident. That would take a crystal ball and is beyond the realm of statistics.

And instead of saying "say" I should have put "suggest" because not matter where you go or what reports of gathered data statistically the numbers are always against us; in reality some of us are fully aware & prepared for this, some have already been there & done that; and there's some who live in the twilight zone who don't believe it'll ever happen to them. Doesn't matter if you've attended training schools or consumed as much safety related material and adhere doggedly to it, statistically somewhere along our motorcycling journeys we'll come to grief whether it be involving another vehicle, self induced, mechanical failure, or conditions; It's far better to be aware of the fact rather than in denial. If you want to live in denial of the possibility that's your choice but don't go crying when something does happen, there's a minority out there that happily prance around saying they've never had an accident...truth of the fact is they're more than likely to be outright liars or their clock is ticking.

[Robert Taylor]

make your mind up what you're saying, and clearly read what you're quoting in the 1st place
An inate object is exactly what a motorcycle is without a rider at the controls, thats why the quote was "Bikes offer no form of protection by themselves"
You could have an experienced rider on a neglected bike & an inexperienced rider on a brand new perfectly set up bike put them in exactly the same scenario and the results would speak for them selves...I know which I'd be backing




And instead of saying "say" I should have put "suggest" because not matter where you go or what reports of gathered data statistically the numbers are always against us; in reality some of us are fully aware & prepared for this, some have already been there & done that; and there's some who live in the twilight zone who don't believe it'll ever happen to them. Doesn't matter if you've attended training schools or consumed as much safety related material and adhere doggedly to it, statistically somewhere along our motorcycling journeys we'll come to grief whether it be involving another vehicle, self induced, mechanical failure, or conditions; It's far better to be aware of the fact rather than in denial. If you want to live in denial of the possibility that's your choice but don't go crying when something does happen, there's a minority out there that happily prance around saying they've never had an accident...truth of the fact is they're more than likely to be outright liars or their clock is ticking.

Exactly. My big road accident many years ago. Ripped the tandem axles out of a trailer, comprehensively shortening and writing off my RZ500. 50% fault of the guy towing the trailer as he didn't see me. Higher visibility leathers weren't so readily available back in 85', and you would have had the same derisory comments from ''leathers should only be black ''people about wearing bright race replica gear. Im not saying higher visibility gear would have avoided this accident, but I see it as another insurance policy to help every chance of accident avoidance
50% my fault as I was young and stupid and travelling at 140km / hour plus. Clear line of sight ahead excepting for the car and trailer pulling out of a side gate. So not enough road to pull up and avoid. Had I been travelling at the legal limit I may have avoided impact or at minimum lessened it.
I am forever thankful for the superb abrasion resistance of the Dainese leathers I was wearing and the Bell helmet which was comprehensively damaged.

[98tls]

On the contrary. To a skilled rider bikes offer the same level of protection as a car (and often more). It's called the ability to avoid having an accident in the first place.


That attitude is just asking for it. No accident is inevitable.

At 42 i thought id heard some shit come outta the mouths of motorcyclists then the mrs decided she needed the internet which produced some laughs,at 50 that takes the cake fella.Over the years ive had my share of offs but hey thats life on 2 wheels,many many moons ago my cousin was heading back to the Air force base up in Blenheim on her bike,for reasons only known to himself an 83 year old decided to cross the centerline on a 3km long straight,no warning no anything he simply swerved and placed his vehicle into hers...didnt even bother braking.Explain to me what you would have done to avoid the inevitability of that...