Shoutout for RST jackets and BullIt jeans

[onearmedbandit]

ACC in short IS little more than protocols

I never stated it was or wasn't. Ive had my battles with them, luckily won each of them. Paralysed my left arm 18yrs ago in a bike accident. Was wearing full leathers etc too that day.

[mynemesis]

Then you miss my point, your value judgment on what is an acceptable level of gear for ACC claim rejection is irrelevant. The only two logical conclusions are it is either rider choice, or we don't get to ride at all.

I think you are confused; I'm advocating for less ACC clauses and blame and pressure etc.



To be clear, and I'll use a picture to help you out a bit.

Attachment 316630

Tapping out with you!

"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

[Mike.Gayner]

yeah nah I'm fine with not paying for you with my acc levies when you come off just popping down the shops

Well we live in a country which values having two competing ideals:

1. Public accident insurance under a no-fault scheme.

2. Freedom to choose to do whatever we want (within reason) and still be covered by the public healthcare system.

Personally I value being able to choose whether or to put on my one piece leather suit to grab a bottle of milk. Do you think I love ACC paying claims to people who injure themselves playing rugby or on horseback? I don't give a flying shit about either of those activities, but again it's part of living in a civilised free society.

You don't have to right to tell me what to wear, and if you try to, I'm going to tell you to fuck yourself with an iron rod.

[mynemesis]

I never stated it was or wasn't. Ive had my battles with them, luckily won each of them. Paralysed my left arm 18yrs ago in a bike accident. Was wearing full leathers etc too that day.

that sounds fucking horrendous mate! I hope you have recovered from it.

My point with that was simply, ACC are little more than extremely expensive protocols and bureaucracy. So my previous issue was with ACC themselves. As the protocols you mentioned, is all I see them as a whole. if you know what I mean?

[onearmedbandit]

that sounds fucking horrendous mate! I hope you have recovered from it.

Long story but no. Still riding though!!

[bogan]

Tapping out with you!

"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Ironically, that's what idiots often say when they can't think of a counterpoint.

I mean seriously, occupant safety based levies/payouts is a sliding scale which will just keep sliding. You only need to look at what has happened since the bikoi to see the truth in that.

[mynemesis]

Well we live in a country which values having two competing ideals:

1. Public accident insurance under a no-fault scheme.

2. Freedom to choose to do whatever we want (within reason) and still be covered by the public healthcare system.

Personally I value being able to choose whether or to put on my one piece leather suit to grab a bottle of milk. Do you think I love ACC paying claims to people who injure themselves playing rugby or on horseback? I don't give a flying shit about either of those activities, but again it's part of living in a civilised free society.

You don't have to right to tell me what to wear, and if you try to, I'm going to tell you to fuck yourself with an iron rod.

so does that mean, in essence what youre saying is, You don't care about paying for other idiots careless activities, so I have no right to care either?

I know thats massive paraphrasing, but thats sort of what I get from your post.

Not meant to be accusatory. But just trying to ascertain.

[Mike.Gayner]

so does that mean, in essence what youre saying is, You don't care about paying for other idiots careless activities, so I have no right to care either?

I know thats massive paraphrasing, but thats sort of what I get from your post.

Not meant to be accusatory. But just trying to ascertain.

No, you can care all you like, just no one else has to give a fuck about your idiotic opinion.

[mynemesis]

My idiotic opinion that we shouldn't have to financially support irresponsible road users for the sake of independent freedom!?

[bogan]

My idiotic opinion that we shouldn't have to financially support irresponsible road users for the sake of independent freedom!?

The idiotic opinion is that you are suited to judge what makes an irresponsible road user.

[mynemesis]

I'm simply in favour of lower ACC fees for those who choose to ride with adequate (yes I understand "adequate" is a relative term to some) safety protective clothing. Over those who ride without it.

I get living in a socialist "free society" means we can't take my nazis approach of cutting off those who ride and are hurt while not wearing appropriate saftey gear. But either some relief for those that do OR penalty charges of some sort for those that don't.

Surely you can't ague, that if someone falls off and isn't wearing gloves (for the massively reasonable reason of "I was just popping to the shops") that that is driving irrisponsibly!? If you were SO sure you were not going to crash, why did you even bother to put your helmet on? Because legislation states that you must. So at the very least, can we include the basics like gloves and sleeves into the required bracket?
If you haven't done everything possible to minimize your exposure to risk you shouldn't be treated as equally as someone who has.

But ultimately I know this is all like, just my opinion man.

I'm not going to argue anymore over this. I'm just happy that OP wasn't hurt coming off at over 100kmh thanks to wearing his safety gear.

No offense meant to anyone. I'm off down the shops on my new bike and have to decide whether to wear my good gloves or my comfortable Alpinestars?

Enjoy your weekend guys.

[bogan]

Surely you can't ague, that if someone falls off and isn't wearing gloves (for the massively reasonable reason of "I was just popping to the shops") that that is driving irrisponsibly!? If you were SO sure you were not going to crash, why did you even bother to put your helmet on? Because legislation states that you must. So at the very least, can we include the basics like gloves and sleeves into the required bracket?
If you haven't done everything possible to minimize your exposure to risk you shouldn't be treated as equally as someone who has.

Isn't that exactly what you are arguing though?

The mind is the greatest safety feature of all, since I'm clearly smarter than you, can I get a massive discount?

It's a sliding scale dude, you really need to understand that.

[WNJ]

Yeah nah thanks. I'm ok with choosing for myself whether I just wear jeans, jacket, boots and GLOVE down to the shops.

Fixed that for ya

[onearmedbandit]

Fixed that for ya

Yeah fair call.

[jonnyk5614]

Here is the reality:

UK: compulsory individually risk assessed insurance covering 3rd party vehicle and injuries.
My Gixxer costs $14'000 to insure, and I'm not allowed a passenger for that.

NZ: $600 ACC $500 fully comp damage cover. Total $1100.

Whether you like it or not, it works and is damned cheap.

ACC is not the place to determine equipment requirements.
The law is - currently it says helmets.

How about simple things:
Gloves, enclosed shoes and helmets.
Not a massive ask but saves a lot of plastic surgery....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk