Grace Millane.

[Katman]

She could not have prevented what happened, because submissives abdicate responsibility (outwith safe words, tricky in this case) and switch into pleasure mode.

Personal responsibility was right up front, consented to and off they went.

So now you have me even more confused.

Was there personal responsibility or was it abdicated?

[FJRider]

Nothing, that's entirely the point. We take a risk, we are happy to take the risk and should something befall us, our peers will acknowledge the risks we took and critique accordingly

She was obviously happy to take the risk for a few thrills ... I guess the actual outcome was not as she expected ... but the actual outcome (on the road or in a hotel room) often isn't what we expected. Regardless of what Mitigation strategy we employ.

Except there is, the whole 'Road Craft' thing, safety gear, Bike technology - ALL Mitigation strategies. I think I've been clear that nothing is 100% foolproof, but to say there is no Mitigation (in any situation in life) is silly.

If you rely on "Mitigation Strategies", "Road-craft","Safety Gear, and "Bike Technology (?? do you mean ABS ??)" to save you skin (literally) ... you really are an idiot. And I'd put a 50% chance of surviving a motorcycle crash at Highway speeds, I have survived crashes at (much) higher speeds ... but I put that down to plain luck. People have died doing exactly as I did. And at the time of my big prangs ... my safety gear was open face helmet, ski gloves, Line 7 two piece wet gear, and running shoes. Bike technology was mid 70's era. Drum brake at the back and single disc on the front. My road-craft strategy was "Keep it under a 100 mph". And I failed that last bit lol.

Plain and simple ... Motorcycling is a lottery. We win if we survive. Nobody wants the second prize.

And why the Anguish?

I know of one woman who had a call from a person that knew her Husband rode a large capacity motorcycle. He had seen a photo of a motorcycle on a motorcycle forum (NOT KB) that was the same make model and colour as the one her husband rode. He asked her where he was, ... on a ride or at home. When told he WAS on a ride and heading to etc ... he told her about the photo he saw. She tried to call the guy(straight to voicemail). Called the place he was going to (never saw him). Called the cops (They couldn't give her any info over the phone, just told her they would be in contact with next of kin if they are known.

The short ending it was NOT him on the crashed bike, he didn't go where he told her he was going, and his phone battery was flat. He arrived home about 9pm.

And you ask ... "Why the anguish" ???

"Should have been wearing high viz"
"Was always riding like a Fuckwit"
"Had more ponies than they could handle"
"too busy trying to get the front wheel up"
"should have been concentrating on known danger zones"

etc.

just like what is happening here.

No point having a mitigation strategy, and safety gear ... if you don't bother to employ it. In such cases ... could it be said the result was self inflicted ??? or simply their (her ??) fault.

Unless the guy was an expert at using restraints, then there is usually enough movement available to 'leave a mark', but supposing this is correct - letting someone you've just met tie you up is a risk.

You think ??? if she WANTED to be tied up ... the restraints would not have been needed to be that tight.

So you prove my point then:

'It's only possible use is as a lesson to us all' - Correct!

You further reinforce the point even more clearly: The lessons AREN'T learned, thus meaning that discussions like this, no matter how painful or condescending or 'victim blaming' are clearly still needed.

Regardless of any point you believe I've proved, being found guilty of murder in a court of law ... is the legal requirement for him to be locked up. But ... what if the jury got it wrong ???

[FJRider]

I don't know about you, but at the end of the day, I don't ask pissed strangers to randomly swerve at me in their car just for me to feel alive.

I doubt that you would.

But ... perhaps ... they are not random strangers.

But they may know or ... have heard of you, and know what car you drive ...


Does it happen often ... ???

[TheDemonLord]

She was obviously happy to take the risk for a few thrills ... I guess the actual outcome was not as she expected ... but the actual outcome (on the road or in a hotel room) often isn't what we expected. Regardless of what Mitigation strategy we employ.

For sure, sometimes shit happens - I've stated this multiple times, so I'm not sure why re-stating what I've already acknowledged is doing here?

If you rely on "Mitigation Strategies", "Road-craft","Safety Gear, and "Bike Technology (?? do you mean ABS ??)" to save you skin (literally) ... you really are an idiot.

I'm not sure what your point is here? Is it an automatic naysaying of something I've posted? Is it a misinterpretation of what I've said? Because I'll be honest - that Sentence is Cassina levels of WTF. And certainly not one I expected from you.

Mitigation strategies are all anyone has to rely on. Literally the entirety of Life. You look both ways when crossing the road? That's a Mitigation strategy. You don't sit at home shooting H and smoking Meth - also a Mitigation strategy. I could go on.

As it pertains to Motorcycling, it's the same as Tank Combat: Don't be there, if you are there, Don't be seen - if you are seen, don't be targetted, if you are targetted, don't be fired upon, if fired upon, don't be hit, if hit, don't be penetrated, if penetrated, don't be killed.

Roadcraft attempts to stop the accident from happening in the first place. ABS/Suspension/Tires help you not impact if the accident happens and good gear (hopefully) helps you not suffer serious injury if the first 2 fail.

Of course, the ultimate mitigation strategy is not to ride - but as above, we all take risks and we also take the responsibility for engaging in those risks.

And I'd put a 50% chance of surviving a motorcycle crash at Highway speeds, I have survived crashes at (much) higher speeds ... but I put that down to plain luck. People have died doing exactly as I did. And at the time of my big prangs ... my safety gear was open face helmet, ski gloves, Line 7 two piece wet gear, and running shoes. Bike technology was mid 70's era. Drum brake at the back and single disc on the front. My road-craft strategy was "Keep it under a 100 mph". And I failed that last bit lol.

Plain and simple ... Motorcycling is a lottery. We win if we survive. Nobody wants the second prize.

Did you learn your lesson and now keep it under 100 Mph? If so, it would seem that your mitigation strategy for the most part is working. Long may it continue to work and you stay rubber side down, shiny side up.

I know of one woman who had a call from a person that knew her Husband rode a large capacity motorcycle. He had seen a photo of a motorcycle on a motorcycle forum (NOT KB) that was the same make model and colour as the one her husband rode. He asked her where he was, ... on a ride or at home. When told he WAS on a ride and heading to etc ... he told her about the photo he saw. She tried to call the guy(straight to voicemail). Called the place he was going to (never saw him). Called the cops (They couldn't give her any info over the phone, just told her they would be in contact with next of kin if they are known.

The short ending it was NOT him on the crashed bike, he didn't go where he told her he was going, and his phone battery was flat. He arrived home about 9pm.

And you ask ... "Why the anguish" ???

Site Rules specifically state that Speculation/discussion on a crash (and we all know what that means, unless you want to dishonestly deny to avoid conceding the point I'm making) should be kept out of Rider Down threads.

The point is that the exact same type of discussion is regularly had between and about members of one half of the Human species, especially when one of them has done something that was foolish and resulted in negative consequences.

No point having a mitigation strategy, and safety gear ... if you don't bother to employ it. In such cases ... could it be said the result was self inflicted ??? or simply their (her ??) fault.

Except I've never said that, this is the strawman that causes all the outrage. It's possible that she could have followed normal, prudent advice about how to go about certain BDSM acts and still end up dead. The point is that in this case there were several key decision points where a different decision could (and perhaps should) have been made which could have averted her death.

You think ??? if she WANTED to be tied up ... the restraints would not have been needed to be that tight.

heh heh heh....

You are so Cute.

Regardless of any point you believe I've proved, being found guilty of murder in a court of law ... is the legal requirement for him to be locked up. But ... what if the jury got it wrong ???

Neither a point I'm making nor something I've argued against.

[mashman]

So now you have me even more confused.

Was there personal responsibility or was it abdicated?

You have to have personal responsibility in order to be able to abdicate it.

[FJRider]

For sure, sometimes shit happens - I've stated this multiple times, so I'm not sure why re-stating what I've already acknowledged is doing here?

Sorry ... I seldom read all your posts. You usually just keep repeating yourself. As you did here.

I'm not sure what your point is here? Is it an automatic naysaying of something I've posted? Is it a misinterpretation of what I've said? Because I'll be honest - that Sentence is Cassina levels of WTF. And certainly not one I expected from you.

Put it this way ... if you look both ways before crossing the road... look out. You might get hit by a lime scooter on the footpath. Shit will happen on the road from directions you can never expect.

Mitigation strategies are all anyone has to rely on. Literally the entirety of Life. You look both ways when crossing the road? That's a Mitigation strategy. You don't sit at home shooting H and smoking Meth - also a Mitigation strategy. I could go on.

Take positive action on the road ... mitigation is a gamble on what might happen. Concentrate on what IS happening ... if you're smart enough to see it. I spend half my working life these days away from home. And I don't smoke. Your point is .. ??? My stratagem on road crossing is above ...

As it pertains to Motorcycling, it's the same as Tank Combat: Don't be there, if you are there, Don't be seen - if you are seen, don't be targetted, if you are targetted, don't be fired upon, if fired upon, don't be hit, if hit, don't be penetrated, if penetrated, don't be killed.

Obviously you have never driven a tank in a war like situation. I have. Talk about things you know about. (Probably difficult for you to do)

attempts to stop the accident from happening in the first place. ABS/Suspension/Tires help you not impact if the accident happens and good gear (hopefully) helps you not suffer serious injury if the first 2 fail.

Attempts mean failure. And seldom painless. You just have to stop having accidents.

Of course, the ultimate mitigation strategy is not to ride

The recommended strategy for idiots. Does it work for you ??

Did you learn your lesson and now keep it under 100 Mph? If so, it would seem that your mitigation strategy for the most part is working. Long may it continue to work and you stay rubber side down, shiny side up.

Short answer ... NO. But no major off's and the few minor ones at low speeds (which FJ1200's don't like).

Site Rules specifically state that Speculation/discussion on a crash (and we all know what that means, unless you want to dishonestly deny to avoid conceding the point I'm making) should be kept out of Rider Down threads.

No mention of phone calls to suspected widows either ...

The point is that the exact same type of discussion is regularly had between and about members of one half of the Human species, especially when one of them has done something that was foolish and resulted in negative consequences.

The fact you have any point surprises me. Now I have to guess which half you belong in ... to help me ... how many accidents were you involved in in the last ten years ??

Except I've never said that, this is the strawman that causes all the outrage. It's possible that she could have followed normal, prudent advice about how to go about certain BDSM acts and still end up dead. The point is that in this case there were several key decision points where a different decision could (and perhaps should) have been made which could have averted her death.

Yep. She could have stayed in England.

heh heh....

You are so Cute.

Some like it tight though ... apparently.

Neither a point I'm making nor something I've argued against.

It was just an idle question. Just something to consider. Jury's don't always get it right.

[Bonez]

No amount of mitigation will stop a dufuss pulling out of an industrial driveway and being t-boned on your bike in a 50 kmph area on a rather nice day. A certainly terchnology wouldn't have stopped it. Or did I need to have a drone scanning the area first? As FJRider said shit happens and sometimes there's nothing you could have done about it. Luckily I was wearining my full leathers that day and they held my left leg tid and fib in place and never needed plates so healed up quite quickly. I've also had faster offs and come out with a few scratches wearing less protictive gear. Things like fresh cow shit right across the apex of a corner is quite hard to avoid.

[TheDemonLord]

Sorry ... I seldom read all your posts. You usually just keep repeating yourself. As you did here.

Perhaps if you read and understood, I wouldn't need to do so...

Put it this way ... if you look both ways before crossing the road... look out. You might get hit by a lime scooter on the footpath. Shit will happen on the road from directions you can never expect.

No one is arguing that shit doesn't happen.

It's the difference between being hit by lightning in a freak occurence and being hit by lightning whilst climbing a tree, holding a golfclub up to the sky, wearing your finest tinfoil hat in a thunderstorm.

One is bad luck, one is due to the result of a series of poor decisions

Take positive action on the road ... mitigation is a gamble on what might happen. Concentrate on what IS happening ... if you're smart enough to see it. I spend half my working life these days away from home. And I don't smoke. Your point is .. ??? My stratagem on road crossing is above ...

Taking Positive action is a Mitigation strategy...

Obviously you have never driven a tank in a war like situation. I have. Talk about things you know about. (Probably difficult for you to do)

I haven't - but the folks who came up with the concept of the Survivability Onion namely The US Army (I hear they've done a few things with tanks in War like situations over the years) would disagree.
Page 21, if you are interested. - however to link the Tangent back - there are parallels between that, Motorcycling and other situations - namely you want to start with avoidance - working all the way down to the final step of 'don't die'. At each layer or level, there are things that can be done to stop a potential threat from proceeding any further.

Attempts mean failure. And seldom painless. You just have to stop having accidents.

Does it? Emergency braking and emergency avoidance once the incident has started are a thing. Granted we tend to refer to those as 'close calls' - but the point stands - something happened, our first layer of defence failed, but the second layer succeeded and all we had to do was ride home and wash our leathers.

The recommended strategy for idiots. Does it work for you ??

I'm still here, so whichever strategy I'm using, it's clearly working.

Short answer ... NO. But no major off's and the few minor ones at low speeds (which FJ1200's don't like).

Seems to me then, given your vintage, that it's not entirely luck, is it? That something you are doing (or not doing) is preventing major accidents, one might even go so far to say that these things collectively might be what have formed a sort of 'strategy' for 'mitigating' major offs...

Long may it continue for you.

The fact you have any point surprises me. Now I have to guess which half you belong in ... to help me ... how many accidents were you involved in in the last ten years ??

2 where I came off the bike.

Both of which, despite not being at fault (and here it comes): There were things I should have done with MY riding, that had I done so, would have prevented the accident, even though I was not at fault

The first accident is/was the only semi-major accident I had and was whilst I was still a learner - the key take away points were situational awareness, proper braking technique and anticipation of what other motorists would do.

Some like it tight though ... apparently.

Well, if something is worth doing...

It was just an idle question. Just something to consider. Jury's don't always get it right.

Agreed - but it's not something I'm contending or relevant to the line of discussion regarding personal responsibility. You may as well have posted that Water is indeed Wet.

[TheDemonLord]

No amount of mitigation will stop a dufuss pulling out of an industrial driveway and being t-boned on your bike in a 50 kmph area on a rather nice day. A certainly terchnology wouldn't have stopped it. Or did I need to have a drone scanning the area first? As FJRider said shit happens and sometimes there's nothing you could have done about it. Luckily I was wearining my full leathers that day and they held my left leg tid and fib in place and never needed plates so healed up quite quickly. I've also had faster offs and come out with a few scratches wearing less protictive gear. Things like fresh cow shit right across the apex of a corner is quite hard to avoid.

You prove my point:

"Luckily I was wearing my full leathers that day"

By wearing the proper gear, you lessened the damage you took.

Granted, the first 2 layers of protection (situational awareness and riding) failed (and in good faith, I'll take you at your word there was nothing you could do), but by taking all the proper precautions and wearing Gear, you didn't end up Dead, a fact we are all thrilled about as now you get to positively contribute in this discussion (and that's not sarcastic btw)

Consider an alternative outcome - you were wearing shorts and Jandals, suffering a compound fracture in the leg, severing your femoral artery and you bled out, and that this thread was about said accident. People would critique your personal choice not to wear gear as causal to your death, people may even speculate that had you been wearing gear it's possible your injuries would have been less severe and you may have survived. Furthermore, if someone was to point to this and say 'And this Kiddos, is why we dress for the slide and not the ride' with the hope that someone to whom such words of wisdom were imparted may take heed of them and don their gear for the next ride and survive an accident - all the better.

[TheDemonLord]

You have to have personal responsibility in order to be able to abdicate it.

Do women not have Personal Responsibility then?

[Katman]

You have to have personal responsibility in order to be able to abdicate it.

Sounds like you're even more confused than me.

[Katman]

you did "
"So would you advise your daughter that it's perfectly fine to walk through a crime ridden neighbourhood"

Well that's part of what I said.

What I actually said in full was...…

So would you advise your daughter that it's perfectly fine to walk through a crime ridden neighbourhood, late at night, by herself, pissed and wearing next to nothing

And what Drew said was.....

I would not have any one knowingly go and hang out with criminals.

Notice how they're different? I'll give you a clue - the sentences are made up of different words.


Now one might start to wonder why Drew chose to use different words.

My guess is that he's starting to realise that he actually agrees with me but can't bring himself to admit it.

[mashman]

Sounds like you're even more confused than me.

If that's how it sounds to you, then that is a shame... but hey, you won't be the first to try to land something at my doorstep that has no business being there. And from you of all people.

[Katman]

... but hey, you won't be the first to try to land something at my doorstep that has no business being there.

It ain't me putting anything on your doorstep.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Murray]

So now you have me even more confused.

You confused? Is this a first time because from history what you think or say is always right and you are never confused?