Open face or full face?

[swbarnett]

You're arguing with yourself.
On the one hand you say it's your "right" to wear an open face helmet, yet you worry about bikes being regulated out existence.

How is that a contradiction? It's the regulators that have it wrong.

Sure, make you may make "informed decisions" but lots of morons out there do not.

So, just because some can't no-one should be allowed to. That only leads to erosion of freedom by a million cuts.

I'd rather be forced to wear protective gear than be forced off the road.

I find myself having to agree with this. However, being forced to wear any given piece of gear is one of many steps to total control of one's minute-by-minute movements. Freedom of thought will go next once the technology becomes available.

It's funny how often people bleating about their rights end up costing everyone else money.

I'm definitely not one of them. FYI: I wear a full-face helmet and wouldn't ride without one (except around a camp site at very low speeds).




I've been thinking about rights over the past 24hours and have decided that you're right, we don't have any inalienable rights. And therefore we do. Let me elaborate: No-one has the right to decide for me what level of risk I will take for myself. Therefore, if no-one else has a right to, I have no choice but do it for myself. Which means that I have a defacto right to decide the risk level that I am comfortable with.

[Oscar]

How is that a contradiction? It's the regulators that have it wrong.


So, just because some can't no-one should be allowed to. That only leads to erosion of freedom by a million cuts.


I find myself having to agree with this. However, being forced to wear any given piece of gear is one of many steps to total control of one's minute-by-minute movements. Freedom of thought will go next once the technology becomes available.


I'm definitely not one of them. FYI: I wear a full-face helmet and wouldn't ride without one (except around a camp site at very low speeds).




I've been thinking about rights over the past 24hours and have decided that you're right, we don't have any inalienable rights. And therefore we do. Let me elaborate: No-one has the right to decide for me what level of risk I will take for myself. Therefore, if no-one else has a right to, I have no choice but do it for myself. Which means that I have a defacto right to decide the risk level that I am comfortable with.

There is no such thing as "freedom" per se: there are only degrees of tyranny.
In our case, it is the tyranny of the majority. The voters decide on the Govt. and the Govt. makes the rules and regulations to do with motorcycles.
The majority is also horrified when the idjuts hurt themsleves and others. That's when your "rights" get hammered.
So you can bang on all you like about your rights, and quote Ben Franklin up the wazoo, but that will get you precisely nowhere when the cops pull you over for no helmet or failing to register your bike coz you don’t agree with the ACC levy.

[Erelyes]

Let me elaborate: No-one has the right to decide for me what level of risk I will take for myself. Therefore, if no-one else has a right to, I have no choice but do it for myself. Which means that I have a defacto right to decide the risk level that I am comfortable with.

Hate to bring ACC into this, but I feel I should have the freedom from increased taxation, in the form of ACC levies, that is as the result of people not wearing protective gear.

Or in other words, no-one has the right to take money off me, because someone else decides to wear an open face helmet (be it rationally or foolishly).

In some senses it'd be great if open face + mushed face = you pay for the medical bills. In some senses it'd be great if t-shirt + pavement slide = you pay for the skin grafts.

But ACC doesn't work like that and it's not that easy... If it was we'd be an even more pitiless species than we are now.

[Mike.Gayner]

Erelyes, I never asked to be in ACC. So what right do you have to tell me what risks I can take, for YOUR financial sake, for a scheme I never asked to be part of?

[Erelyes]

Erelyes, I never asked to be in ACC. So what right do you have to tell me what risks I can take, for YOUR financial sake, for a scheme I never asked to be part of?

Me individually? Well, perhaps the question shouldn't be 'what right' but 'how much right'. The answer to which, in theory*, is 1 in 2,278,989.

*democracy being the worst form of government except all others that have been tried.

[swbarnett]

There is no such thing as "freedom" per se: there are only degrees of tyranny.
In our case, it is the tyranny of the majority. The voters decide on the Govt. and the Govt. makes the rules and regulations to do with motorcycles.

If only those making the rules had the brains to recognise that they have no business making laws about what I do to myself.

The majority is also horrified when the idjuts hurt themsleves and others. That's when your "rights" get hammered.

The problem comes when these two get mixed up. If I only hurt myself then it's nobody else's business. If I directly hurt others however, that's a different matter.

So you can bang on all you like about your rights, and quote Ben Franklin up the wazoo, but that will get you precisely nowhere when the cops pull you over for no helmet or failing to register your bike coz you don’t agree with the ACC levy.

Only because the general public are too apathetic to realise that their freedom is being eroded right in front of them.

[swbarnett]

Hate to bring ACC into this, but I feel I should have the freedom from increased taxation, in the form of ACC levies, that is as the result of people not wearing protective gear.

Or in other words, no-one has the right to take money off me, because someone else decides to wear an open face helmet (be it rationally or foolishly).

In some senses it'd be great if open face + mushed face = you pay for the medical bills. In some senses it'd be great if t-shirt + pavement slide = you pay for the skin grafts.

But ACC doesn't work like that and it's not that easy... If it was we'd be an even more pitiless species than we are now.

What you and others like you continuously seem to miss is that the fact that we ALL benefit when we live in a society of healthy individuals that enjoy the freedom to do what they will with their own body and mind (as long as noone else is directly harmed in the process). If all I have to do to produce said society is cough up a small monetary contribution then I will do so gladly. Yes, I think the ACC motorcycle levies are too high. Because the method of apportioning the cost is inequitable.

[swbarnett]

Me individually? Well, perhaps the question shouldn't be 'what right' but 'how much right'. The answer to which, in theory*, is 1 in 2,278,989.

*democracy being the worst form of government except all others that have been tried.

If I'm not directly harming anyone else then you have no right at all to tell me what I can and can't do to my body and mind.

[Oscar]

If only those making the rules had the brains to recognise that they have no business making laws about what I do to myself.


The problem comes when these two get mixed up. If I only hurt myself then it's nobody else's business. If I directly hurt others however, that's a different matter.


Only because the general public are too apathetic to realise that their freedom is being eroded right in front of them.

If only those making the rules allowed people to opt out of state assistance like ACC and hospital care.
No matter what you think, your bad choices can affect others - or are you saying that a brain damaged person who crashes with no helmet on should be left where they fall?

[Oscar]

Only because the general public are too apathetic to realise that their freedom is being eroded right in front of them.

What freedom?
Are you advocating that we abolish ACC?
Return to insurers and lawyers to settle matters?

Your freedom isn't being eroded, it never existed - we just upgraded the system of control.

Besides, you're getting freedom mixed up with responsibility, because whenever you use the roads in this country you are responsible to other road users, your family and the taxpayers for the consequences of bad decision that you make. If there was no ACC, you would buy insurance, no because you wanted too, but because the consequences of not doing so would be financially crippling.

[scumdog]

If I'm not directly harming anyone else then you have no right at all to tell me what I can and can't do to my body and mind.

UNLESS you expect others to pay for fixing up your fucked-up body and/or mind when 'something' you chose to do goes wrong...

[Erelyes]

If I'm not directly harming anyone else then you have no right at all to tell me what I can and can't do to my body and mind.

I am sure there are plenty of 'First responders' on here who'd be happy to argue about the amount of 'harm' done to them emotionally, attending accidents that involve people wearing less gear than they should.

[swbarnett]

If only those making the rules allowed people to opt out of state assistance like ACC and hospital care.

The scheme only works if it covers everybody.

your bad choices can affect others

Of this I have no doubt. What I'm saying is that the freedom to make those bad choices about what I do to myself is one of the cornerstones of a just society. Something I am more than willing to contribute to financially.

- or are you saying that a brain damaged person who crashes with no helmet on should be left where they fall?

Definitely not. You've obviously missed my point if you think I would advocate that. I am very much in favour of picking up a brain damaged person no matter what they were wearing at the time.

I have a friend in exactly this position. She is now permanently brain damaged (although not to the point of a vegetable) because of an impact to the head while not wearing a helmet. At this point in the reading I'm sure some will be thinking things like "what a prat for not wearing a helmet". However, they don't yet have the full story - she was driving a van and got t-boned. Her head hit the door post.

[swbarnett]

I am sure there are plenty of 'First responders' on here who'd be happy to argue about the amount of 'harm' done to them emotionally, attending accidents that involve people wearing less gear than they should.

Or you could put it another way:

I am sure there are plenty of 'First responders' on here who'd be happy to argue about the amount of 'harm' done to them emotionally, attending accidents that involve people riding motocycles.

Don't blame the injured party because someone else chose to put themselves in harms way to help them.

[swbarnett]

UNLESS you expect others to pay for fixing up your fucked-up body and/or mind when 'something' you chose to do goes wrong...

I don't expect anybody else to pay for any fixing up that is necessary. Yes, I'm damn glad when they do but the choice is theirs, not mine.

All you lot advocating removing my freedom to do what I will with my body and mind had better get used to spending your life wrapped up in cotton wool within a massive concrete bunker. And don't expect to ever see the sun again.