Newbies and UoA riders - this is aimed at you!!

[KiwiKat]

Been there and done that. It hurts. There is an urge to get on the bike and ride, safety gear is a pain in the ass but a necessity. I'm lucky to be alive several times over and would not have the scars I have if I had worn proper gear. Light jersey, jeans and jacket does nothing. I was mostly saved because I slid on my leather gloves and had a decent helmet. Be very wary of the caged beast.

[Ixion]

Sounds entirely sensible to me ... same as pushbike helmets, seatbelts and not drinking and driving. If people don't expect to be able to go to hospital, receive ACC and get rehabilitation support then your point is valid.

However if they expect to have any of those things available to them as a matter of 'right' then they have to take personal responsibility to minimise the damage and length of time taken to heal.

It's simple. If you are one of those peole who want the "freedom" to do as you please, then you should have to sign an opt-out clause where you get left on the side of the road for the dogs, cats and rats to deal with. If you don't want that then get real!
Reply With Quote

Maybe. but you lose all rights to that sanctimonious position unless you also only ever wear a plain white helmet and a hi-vis vest. Do you ?

And the original posters polemic would have been a lot more convincing if he had a different avatar!

And I don't expect anyone else to pay my share of ACC. In fact I almost certainly subsidise most of you, especially the wheelie brigade.

[Ragingrob]

I do not know why this is aimed at UoA riders... We all know that there are quite a few bikers out there who aren't too struck up about having full gear or not.

Sure rant about it to newbies so it gets drilled into their head and hopefully it will save their skin and bones, but a special mention towards UoA riders just because that's who got hit is a bit random. Why stereotype one biker to an entire university?

Our uni club the SMC is quite heavy on gear and the majority of guys in the club wear ATGATT.

I'd just say this guy has definitely learnt the hard way, and hope he's a bit smarter about gear in the future.

[PirateJafa]

Sounds entirely sensible to me ... same as pushbike helmets, seatbelts and not drinking and driving. If people don't expect to be able to go to hospital, receive ACC and get rehabilitation support then your point is valid.

But what do you consider "äcceptable" then?

Should everyone who ventures onto the roads be wearing a one-piece leather racing suit then? Oh and a $1,000 Shoei helmet of course. Plain white for visibility. And don't forget the fire-retardant suit, just in case.

Or will ACC base the payout on how much gear they were wearing? 20% for a helmet, 15% for jacket, 15% for gloves etc?

[outlawtorn]

Okay boys and girls,

I just witnessed a young guy on a Suzuki Bandit 250 get launched skywards after a cager pulled a u-turn on Symonds street outside the UoA.

Young guy looked to be okay, the Ambo's are carting him up to Auckland as I write this - his bike is comprehensively Donald Ducked (fucked for those of you who are a bit slow). I stopped and made sure he was allright, and then wasted 40 minutes chatting to a cop (who was actually a deccent sort). While a little worse for wear, he'll grow the bits back evenutally. Would have been better if he had've had more skin left though.


Now, this is really simple, and it's a rant that you'd better pay attention to:
You have no right to be on a bike without the correct safety gear. An ill-fitting jacket and third-hand scratched lid do not afford you the protection you need, even with the halo of invincibility that youth and knowing it all affords you.

Street shoes and pants will not keep your skin intact, nor will they keep your bones aligned.

Each day I drive Symonds Street, and I watch 100's of people cross the road without looking, and inevitably, every car either pulls out without looking, or does the u-turn without giving a second thought. There is a certain inevitability at play here. Ride carefully, ride protected with the right gear. If you can't afford the gear, take the bus instead.


Rant over. As you were.
MBB.

Well said mate, 100% behind you, lets hope noobies and everyone else takes notice!

[madbikeboy]

I do not know why this is aimed at UoA riders... We all know that there are quite a few bikers out there who aren't too struck up about having full gear or not.

Sure rant about it to newbies so it gets drilled into their head and hopefully it will save their skin and bones, but a special mention towards UoA riders just because that's who got hit is a bit random. Why stereotype one biker to an entire university?

Our uni club the SMC is quite heavy on gear and the majority of guys in the club wear ATGATT.

I'd just say this guy has definitely learnt the hard way, and hope he's a bit smarter about gear in the future.

It's aimed at the UoA / newbies because the guy hit was an UoA / noob. Am I talking to fast for y'all, or is logic no longer a required course for you? Also, he's not alone in the group of riders that I see riding from UoA each day as I pass.

I think my point is, that lessons can be learned vicariously.

[madbikeboy]

Maybe. but you lose all rights to that sanctimonious position unless you also only ever wear a plain white helmet and a hi-vis vest. Do you ?

And the original posters polemic would have been a lot more convincing if he had a different avatar!

And I don't expect anyone else to pay my share of ACC. In fact I almost certainly subsidise most of you, especially the wheelie brigade.

You're missing my point and looking for your normal conspiracy "government is going to take away my rights in some Kafta-esque nightmare" with a message about riding with gear commensurate with threat.

[Forest]

I seem to recall that a young student biker get killed on Symonds St by a U-turning driver a few years back (would have been around 2004).

[madbikeboy]

You pretty much completely managed to avoid my point.

You appear to be the one supporting a "nanny state", with your view that all bikers "must" wear appropriate safety gear.

What even defines "correct" gear? Currently the law defines it as a helmet that meets certain safety standards. Evidently this is not enough for you. You want everyone to wear more gear as well? Jackets? Gloves? Pants? Boots? What next? Back protectors? Hi-viz vests? What do you define as "correct" gear? It seems purely subjective to me.

You consider it only fair, from your perspective, that all bikers should minimise the risks to themselves by wearing full safety gear.

But when you reach that point, is it not also fair, from a car-driver's perspective, that bikers should minimise the risks by not biking?

It's a slippery slope you tread there MBB.

Incorrect, I am a biker who just dragged another biker (minus a bunch of skin) off the road after he got hit. His damage was commensurate with the piss poor safety gear that he, like you, seemed not to need.

Your halo of invincibility is blocking your future common sense (which may kick in depending on Darwin and some luck).

You are right, I consider it fair, that bikers should minimise the risks by wearing full gear. Do you think that legislative minimums are enough for you? Do you ride sans gloves, back protector, pants with armour, and boots? I ride with them, there is no law urging me to do so. My slippery slope is paved with good intention (apologies for the mixed metaphor), but your logic is flawed.

I wish I was young and knew it all, I'd go back and shag more 18 year old chicks...

[Ragingrob]

It's aimed at the UoA / newbies because the guy hit was an UoA / noob. Am I talking to fast for y'all, or is logic no longer a required course for you? Also, he's not alone in the group of riders that I see riding from UoA each day as I pass.

I think my point is, that lessons can be learned vicariously.

The ATGATT has been argued a million times on here, and that is all this thread is about again.

On a side note: Many "bikers" at uni are just commuters who have chosen a bike over a scooter, they aren't in it for the actual "riding" as such. Their mindset would be as that of many scooter riders, "commuting 10k or whatever a day in 50kph zones, why should we wear hardout gear?!"

Well know he knows.

[Ixion]

You're missing my point and looking for your normal conspiracy "government is going to take away my rights in some Kafta-esque nightmare" with a message about riding with gear commensurate with threat.

Not at all. You condemn a rider for riding with what you deem suboptimal safety gear. Yet there is overwhelming evidence that white helmets and hi-vis vests are positive safety initiatives. So, riding without them is riding with suboptimal safety gear. Why then should you not be condemned on the same basis as the rider you condemn ? Pot, kettle, etc.

BTW, those who scream for laws to compel riders to wear all the safety gear might like to ponder that the VERY first item of compulsory safety gear will be - yep, a hi-vis vest. Why? Cos before making something mandatory by law, you have to define an accepted standard for what you are making compulsory. Can't make jackets compulsorily until you have a standard that defines what is an acceptable motorcycle jacket for the purposes of the law - otherwise any 'jacket' would suffice.

Now, most motorcycle gear does not have accepted standards that would stand up in a court of law. (except helmets) . Before such a standard can be promulgated, there must be research to prove that adherence to the standard provides a defined level of 'safety'. Which takes a long time and costs a lot of money.

The only non-helmet item that does have such standards already promulgated is the hi-vis vest. The standards were established because they are widely used in industry.

So hi-viz can be mandated at the scratch of a law makers pen. Anything else would take a lot of time and money (for a tiny market by international standards). So, guess which item the Sheeple will choose first?

You'll all look so cute with hi-vis vests over toothpaste suits.

Won't worry me, I wear one anyway. And I'm really pissed off at you ignorant risktakers who don't. I have to pay extra ACC because of you. get with it, fluoro green or fluoro red, your choice.

[PirateJafa]

Incorrect, I am a biker who just dragged another biker (minus a bunch of skin) off the road after he got hit. His damage was commensurate with the piss poor safety gear that he, like you, seemed not to need.

Your halo of invincibility is blocking your future common sense (which may kick in depending on Darwin and some luck).

You are right, I consider it fair, that bikers should minimise the risks by wearing full gear. Do you think that legislative minimums are enough for you? Do you ride sans gloves, back protector, pants with armour, and boots? I ride with them, there is no law urging me to do so. My slippery slope is paved with good intention (apologies for the mixed metaphor), but your logic is flawed.

I wish I was young and knew it all, I'd go back and shag more 18 year old chicks...

I wish I was old and knew it all.

Then I could go and make blanket assumptions about young people.

My halo of invincibility? That's been gone since childhood. I'm no cotton-wool baby.

Hell I've only got 20% mobility in my left arm, due to a bike crash.

Of course, I should have been wearing full gear right?

Oh wait, I was wearing full gear.

Don't worry, avoiding the flaws in your logic will only get you so far. Luckily, relying on baseless stereotypes will get you the rest of the way.

And Rob is right - generally I see a better level of safety gear from the SMC than I see from non-SMC riders.

Pull your head in.

[Ixion]

..


You are right, I consider it fair, that bikers should minimise the risks by wearing full gear. Do you think that legislative minimums are enough for you? Do you ride sans gloves, back protector, pants with armour, and boots? I ride with them, there is no law urging me to do so. My slippery slope is paved with good intention (apologies for the mixed metaphor), but your logic is flawed.

But not a white helmet and hi-viz vest ? tch tch. Shame on you, we have to pay your ACC you know. Your halo of invincibility is blocking your future common sense (which may kick in depending on Darwin and some luck).

[madbikeboy]

But what do you consider "äcceptable" then?

Should everyone who ventures onto the roads be wearing a one-piece leather racing suit then? Oh and a $1,000 Shoei helmet of course. Plain white for visibility. And don't forget the fire-retardant suit, just in case.

Or will ACC base the payout on how much gear they were wearing? 20% for a helmet, 15% for jacket, 15% for gloves etc?

Okay, I'm going to ignore the sarcasm and stupidity and answer thus:
I ride with:
- Decent well fitting lid, I have an HJC and a Shoei, both around $1000.
- Decent jacket, I use either AlpineStars (choice of a few), or I use a Technic which is weather proof
- Decent gloves, I like using my hands, AlpineStars
- Either AlpineStars pants, with armour, or Dianese textiles
- Decent boots with ankle bracing, and with titanium toe sliders
- Dianese back protector.

A one piece suit, or at least top and bottom textiles that zip together are a good idea.

The optional bits are the Titanium toe sliders. Sometimes I replace them with newer ones. I also ride with headlight on. And I ride defensively, keeping a defensive depth, making sure I plan where to go if "x" or "y" happens. I also listen attentively to experienced riders, again this is the living vicariously bit.


Who gives a damn about payouts from ACC - preventing the damage is the object lesson here.

[Ixion]

"Titanium toe sliders" and "ride defensively" are mutually incompatible statements