Why don't folks wear gloves when they're riding?

[madmal64]

Well Im another in the personal responsibility camp. We are all aware that if we fall we get hurt and to what level we wish to protect ourselves should be up to us.
Hell I must admit I even rode from my local corner store to my place earlier this week without my gloves on I went into the shop to get some smokes (ban them too! they may kill me as well!) on my way from from work and couldnt be arsed putting them back on. It thought about it, weighed up the risk and took a punt. I DID think about it too. It was a really weird feeling and something that I was really concious of.
Hell I even wear an open face helmet when I travel on a V8 trike from time to time. I dont have to but I do because it feels right for me. It feels weird traveling in something without a roof at speed without a lid on but on the V8 trike I dont have to but I do.
As for if they made it compulsory to wear gloves, full face hemet etc it would reduce/ help eith ACC levies thats a laugh! The cost of enforcing it would put up of levies.

Live how you want to live, as long as it does not directly effect the way that any other person wants to live their lives. Does the act of another person NOT wearing gloves directly effect anyone else?

[swbarnett]

Soon we wont be able to even buy fireworks at all...NOW THAT SUCKS....just cos of a few stupid idiots...

The "few stupid idiots" lie in two camps - Those that think they have a right to remove our freedoms and those (us) that sit back and let it happen without a fight.

This has been discussed before:

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...ad.php?t=59772

[James Deuce]

You're not allowed to say that any more. Reposts have been sanctioned by the KB community as the "only way to go".

[swbarnett]

You're not allowed to say that any more. Reposts have been sanctioned by the KB community as the "only way to go".

It wasn't intended so much as a repost alert more a sort of "I can't be bothered going through this all again when it's so well hashed back on page 42".

[James Deuce]

That too.

You're also allowed circular arguments now.

[swbarnett]

I promise, this is the last time (I don't want to be known as a referral junkie!).

Good discussions in here on the issue of banning things (you might have to hunt for it):

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...ad.php?t=64162

[mv.senna]

well, this thread has generated some interesting discussion good stuff, many thanks to you all.

Because I personally don't find wearing gloves/gear while riding a hardship, or difficulty, I don't understand why other people might. Therefore, the objective of posting this thread was to try and get myself an insight as to why i.e: what are the "barriers" if you like - is it cost, comfort, can't be r6'd, distance to be travelled etc completely unaware of the potential consequences....what's the rationalisation process behind wearing or not wearing of gear?

usually i'm not one to advocate generic banning or legislation changes about things, and believe very much in freedom of choice (especially if it doesn't impact on others) but lets be honest, open face helmets really are being incorrectly marketed as protective safety gear - to people who may/may not understand this. They protect very little in the instance of an off. Face vs tarseal = tarseal wins every time. (PS: point taken about the claustrophobia etc but that is possibly another issue).

while i liked the suggestion of the sliding scale of compensation that was suggested, unfortunately I think we all know that a system like this will never happen, because it's in the "too hard" category - much easier to target the riders. the thing that sh*ts me the most is that ACC know that motorcyclists are responsible only for 1/3 of all motorcycle accidents, however they target US to be "more careful"....this is because it's way too hard to focus on the bigger problem - that as a nation, the overall car driving skills have degenerated to the equivalent of the "doris" character described early in this thread.

...which brings me back to my earlier point....we're limited with what we can do to protect ourselves in 2/3rds of our crashes, so, if there's something we can do to minimise the damage to ourselves in the remaining 1/3rd (or in any situation) - i.e by wearing riding gear, then why wouldn't you?



PS:
1. ref to riding jandals - apologies, meant "crocs" - no disrespectin "the chandal"
2. as i understand it, we pay a levy within our wages/salary which provides funding for home/sports (non work) accidents. road accidents are funded via petrol tax and registrations; and motorcycle registrations go nowhere near providing enough funding to cover the cost of motorcycle accidents.

[MacD]

the thing that sh*ts me the most is that ACC know that motorcyclists are responsible only for 1/3 of all motorcycle accidents, however they target US to be "more careful"....

This might be true for urban intersection accidents, but another 1/3 of motorcycle accidents are of the single vehicle, open road, lost control (usually on a corner) type, which due to the higher speeds involved result in proportionally more fatalities and worse injuries (MoT Crash Statistics).

Motorcyclists aren't quite as innocent on the road as we like to believe.

[scumdog]

This might be true for urban intersection accidents, but another 1/3 of motorcycle accidents are of the single vehicle, open road, lost control (usually on a corner) type, which due to the higher speeds involved result in proportionally more fatalities and worse injuries (MoT Crash Statistics).

Motorcyclists aren't quite as innocent on the road as we like to believe.

True.

The two fatals in recent years that I went to were caused purely by rider incompetence, of the injury ones only ONE was caused by another vehicle (pulled out of a side-street on front of the bike) but even that rider was over the EBA limit.

[discotex]

As for the 'bimbo's on the scooters, it cracks me up that they bother so much about looking hot on the scooter but don't think about what a mess they will look when they have an accident!!

Scooters don't crash. Didn't you know that?

Did anyone else see the granny ride the scooter into the wall during the warm up to the A1GP on 3 this afternoon? Had to laugh that the retards thought it would be a good idea to put a granny on a scooter in a shop and let her wring the throttle... Was very relieved she wasn't hurt and laughed it off.

Yep but the pissing off bit is it is at our expence when they bin. We collectively need to get the message accross to them to keep our ACC premiums to a reasonable level.

Fixing ACC might be a good start.

Quite some time ago there was a similar thread (probably lots of 'em actually)...
However, I suggested that since it is the rider's choice, except the helmet, that a sliding scale of ACC cover should apply.
1/. All the gear = full cover (and I mean full, none of this you pay the first $50 or whatever)
2/. No gloves = rider pays a third, ACC covers the rest
3/. No jacket - pants - boots = as above
4/. No gear (barring helmet) = rider pays the lot
You get the idea?

Yep.. I'd still say cover the cost of hostipal treatment but take away people's rights to 80% of their wage if their "personal freedom" significantly contributed to their inability to work. I believe some of the US states with no helmet and no seatbelt laws do something like that.

Good answer, Vifferman, and one I was counting on being posted. It points out nicely all the ludicrous shortfalls of this ACC system we are stuck with. The system that is brilliant on paper, just like Heilen and Mikhail's policies, but is actually stifling in it's operation.

Yep non-fault insurance cover means the insurer will want to minimise the risk of claims. When you're a government department it's easy to look to legislation to achieve that.

It is intersting to note the amount of sprotbike riders who wear open-face helmets... A very rare breed indeed.

That's because a mirror or dark tint visor looks stupid on a MOMO open face helmet.

Motorcyclists aren't quite as innocent on the road as we like to believe.

Nope they're all evil. Burn em.

[ynot slow]

Cause they are f.ckwits.

Agree with the sanding part re road and hands.Had a slow speed off years ago (30km)tops,gloves stopped a lot of damage,as me being a mere mortal I stuck then down first,although not moto glove but ski ones they did some of the trick,had a small group of bruises and cuts.Less than when I ran accross the street totally pissed one night and tripped,velocity of speed max 5kms,woke up with hand bandaged by my beloved and a sore elbow,palm of my hand was raw as,and at jogging speed not even fast to do damage,but cause I was pissed didn't remember lol.

Went for a ride today but had boots,gloves and jackets x2 both of us,and just jeans on,most of ride was at 50 km,but did about 10 km on highway and rural roads,reason for jeans only was we were not going far at 100km highway speeds and were too hot around town.

[slopster]

People are always having a go at scooter riders but your unlikely to get seriously injured at 50kmh. Big painful, sticky anoying grazes but not serious abrasions. At proper open road speeds of course your a fool to not be properely kitted up

[discotex]

People are always having a go at scooter riders but your unlikely to get seriously injured at 50kmh. Big painful, sticky anoying grazes but not serious abrasions. At proper open road speeds of course your a fool to not be properely kitted up

Ok fair enough justification for wearing jeans (hell I use it) but you can grind a lot of tendon and bone off your hands at 50km/h.

Most serious cyclists and mountain bikers wear gloves right.......

At $99 I can't see why you wouldn't wear these (and stick them in the 'boot' along with your helmet).

[Daffyd]

I ALWAYS wear all the gear, (from top down,) helmet, with armour), jacket, gloves, riding pants, (with armour), calf length boots. If really hot, draggin jeans in lieu of riding pants. Was given a new O/F helmet last week and used it for the first time today on a short ride. I hated it! Doubt that I'll ever use it again, except for maybe a trip down to the shop. (about 300 metres)

[Owl]

Fixing ACC might be a good start.



Yep.. I'd still say cover the cost of hostipal treatment but take away people's rights to 80% of their wage if their "personal freedom" significantly contributed to their inability to work. I believe some of the US states with no helmet and no seatbelt laws do something like that.

"Take away people's rights"???
You're off to a really good start in your attempt to fix ACC! Take away the income support and you take away ACC's incentive to provide treatment!

I apologise if my “personal freedom” has contributed to your higher ACC levies. If only I’d spent $700 on high tech race boots instead of the $350 for touring boots, I may not have crushed my foot and required ACC support. But I guess we’ll never know, so SORRY!