Protective clothing legislation?

[Bullitt]

Im against compulsory gear but even more strongly against compulsory vests. It probably would reduce the number of accidents as Id have to seriously consider whether I kept riding if I was forced to wear one.

Harnesses are illegal in cars (AFAIK 3 point is illegal too) partially because theyre time consuming to put on. Partially because you cant turn around to look behind you.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Tell me do smokers pay higher ACC because they smoke... they could have a heart attack caused by smoking, and while driving take out a line of motorcyclists and three cages... Again if I cause an accident I am expected to pay for it... it shouldn't matter if I am riding a motorcycle or am in a cage... but no we pay higher ACC... and then I have to pay ACC even if I have private insurance... why is that...

As for vests, its been proven that in reality they make no difference, especially around town when you have a continuous change of visual movement contacts and multitudes of colour... Many people see the black and darker colours before lighter colours, sub-uconsciousily the brain sees black as a threatening colour and will pick it out first...

I am more worried about the blond doing her make up, or the fuck-wit on the cell phone, mum yelling at the kids to shut the fuck up, dad changing the radio station or CD, some young boy racer thinking he knows how to handle his car with his uncertified modified suspension, the wanker thinking that he can over take that truck where I wouldn't even do that on the bike... the tail-gating wankers, the kid chasing his ball onto the road, the red light runners... and the list goes on and on... the vests aren't really going to save you really...

As I have said before... on many bikes if you can see the vest its to bloody late... fairing blocking the view from the front, top boxes and luggage from the rear... and if you are seeing it from the side I hope you have already fucken well stopped... But those that wear them if they fell safer then good on them... If we were all made to were them than it gets worse and we will simply blend back into the background... same as if all cars were driving with lights on during the day... the bikes will just blend in to the background again... At the moment if you see a light on a vehicle during the day 99% chance its a bike... but what if all vehicles had lights on... you wouldn't know again and proof has been shown that daylight running lights in Europe are bad for drivers in general on there eyes...

We have all seen the stats, we all know motorcycling is a higher risk... we ain't that stupid, and we all (well most) take the steps to minimise the risk to our-self to the best of our ability. Yes we all make fuck ups, and most of the time we are lucky to get away with it.

[MDR2]

Health issues related to smoking would be considered a gradual process. and as a result not considered an 'accident' . ACC isn't there for smokers. Thats what the public health system/private insurance is for.

Having had a few falls both on road and off road, I can ateast, having the wind knocked out of you sucks, can't be helped though, all part and parcel of slamming into ashphalt, much the same as torn ligaments and muscles are hard to avoid as your arms legs and head are thrown about and collect every friggen possible object about, as I say, can't be helped. Unless you keep it butter side up

Friction burns sting for a day or so, but i'd sooner suffer a few days discomfort then months/years worth of skin grafting and having some dude in a white gowen and a wire brush clean my wounds.

This is why I wear my gear.

I thank the powers that be that I have a right to either wear it or not. And while I shake my head at people that don't wear it, it is their choice. I'd certainly never waste my breath on asking/telling anyone they should be wearing the correct gear because im sure, just like me they weigh up all the possibilitys and chances they will be taking every time they straddle their bikes.

Legislation is not the way. Education is. Be it by shock advertising or learning from your mistakes.

[Starky307]

Tell me do smokers pay higher ACC because they smoke... they could have a heart attack caused by smoking

Have you not seen the amount of money that is generated by the tax that is added to a pack of smokes, this all goes into the "fund" which helps run our country and in part ACC.

[Starky307]

I have been talking to an ex work collegue today who threw up an interesting comment that got me to thinking.

He is saying that there is a campaign among legislators in NZ to enforce the wearing of 'suitable protective clothing, padding or armour' when riding any type and size of motorcycle or moped.

It appears that this thread has been hijacked by a bunck of ACC lovers and haters and nothing conclusive to answer your question yes or no.

There are some groups trying to reward those who choose to wear sensible clothing while riding and then reward them. I hope this helps you Fatt Max and to everyone else, get texting and try to win some free gas for yourself and the person you are reporting.

Check out this link.

[Road Guardian]

Harnesses are illegal in cars (AFAIK 3 point is illegal too) partially because they're time consuming to put on. Partially because you cant turn around to look behind you.

Nope, not quiet true.

Anyone in a car can install a harness (whether its a 3 point, 4 point or 5 five point), they just need to get the harness installed correctly, and they have get a low volume vehicle certificate, and display it on the vehicle and have it renewed every year. + you need bucket seats.

Yes they are a pain in the arse to put on, and to a degree you cant turn around to see behind you.

[Bullitt]

Thats not right.

The only way you can have harnesses in a road car are if you have a motorsport authority card or theyre OEM fitmet. If I wanted to put harnesses in a regular car I couldnt do it unless I was willing to regularly race it and do all the other modifications that requires.

I have to rush out now but Ill find the legislation later.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Health issues related to smoking would be considered a gradual process. and as a result not considered an 'accident' . ACC isn't there for smokers. Thats what the public health system/private insurance is for.

Have you not seen the amount of money that is generated by the tax that is added to a pack of smokes, this all goes into the "fund" which helps run our country and in part ACC.

Like i said the heart attack while caused by smoking is a different health issue, the actual aftermath of the accident s/he caused would have to be covered by ACC...

Because they are a higher risk of heart attack when on the road the are a higher risk for all..

[Lord Derosso]

A few members have commented on the gear worn by scooter riders and I have seen many riding with little protection around Wellington. Yes, there are some very attractive ladies riding them but I still remember that advt someone posted a year or so back showing what happens to their butts and back skin when they fall off. However it gets worse. Mid week I spotted a guy with no gloves, a teeshirt and bare feet and with a pillion on the back. Perhaps I am envious because I lose 2 litres of water per 10kms when wearing my old super heavy leather jacket but I cant help thinking what would happen if that guy needed to stop in a hurry and what sort of person would be getting on the back of a scooter with someone whom obviously doesnt care about himself.

[Pixie]

A few members have commented on the gear worn by scooter riders and I have seen many riding with little protection around Wellington. Yes, there are some very attractive ladies riding them but I still remember that advt someone posted a year or so back showing what happens to their butts and back skin when they fall off. However it gets worse. Mid week I spotted a guy with no gloves, a teeshirt and bare feet and with a pillion on the back. Perhaps I am envious because I lose 2 litres of water per 10kms when wearing my old super heavy leather jacket but I cant help thinking what would happen if that guy needed to stop in a hurry and what sort of person would be getting on the back of a scooter with someone whom obviously doesnt care about himself.

You were probably at more risk of an accident losing the 2 litres of water and therefore having your mental faculties compromised by a hydration deficit,than the scooterists.

The motorcycle cops in hot countries don't wear "safety" gear for this reason.

[Starky307]

Like i said the heart attack while caused by smoking is a different health issue, the actual aftermath of the accident s/he caused would have to be covered by ACC...

Because they are a higher risk of heart attack when on the road the are a higher risk for all..

Your right, and that is why they pay for it in the large amount of tax within the price of cigarettes, it is almost a sort of user pays. Acc is not kept afloat by tax paying citizens, it is (well almost) kept afloat by the levies placed on us road going motorcyclists, people who buy alcohol, cigarettes, petrol etc etc.

What I am trying to say is that they do pay for their choice.

Please note i am not condoning smoking in any way shape or form but just adding another side o your comments.

[Lord Derosso]

You were probably at more risk of an accident losing the 2 litres of water and therefore having your mental faculties compromised by a hydration deficit,than the scooterists.

The motorcycle cops in hot countries don't wear "safety" gear for this reason.

Two litres was obviously a joke but since I have the VN with a full windscreen I have noticed I sweat a lot more so I have been drinking a pint of water before riding, and leave the leathers open halfway. Its just on hot days in the endless heavy stop start traffic its a problem. One of my aims before next summer is to find a decent light armoured jacket but will have to do with the old heavy leathers due to other priorities, and it still does the job perfectly. I use to ride in teeshirts etc on bikes in summer in the far north as it was just too hot but got stung badly a few times by bees so tended to wear hunting jackets or similar. As for the overseas cops, I remember CHIPS and they just worn short sleeved shirts, open helments and dinky gloves. Good boots though from memory.

Didnt they ride Kawasaki 1000's ?

[90s]

Here is a question for you. Helmets are overwhelmingly good right ? .... At best a helmet may double your chance of survival.

Double chance of survival ... this is what is called overwhelming statistical confirmation.
I'll take a doubling of my survival odds thanks.

You will not be able to demonstrate a statistical effect of this magnitude by any other gear ammendment on bikes - similar to the improvements in survivability made to car drivers by seatbelts.

Avoiding accidents by training and other means would have a better effect though of course on our actual safety, but is nigh impossible to prove causation. Therefore politicos are not interested - they like high viz populist action, such as "these bright shirts must have some results".

[Badjelly]

As for vests, its been proven that in reality they make no difference, especially around town when you have a continuous change of visual movement contacts and multitudes of colour... Many people see the black and darker colours before lighter colours, sub-uconsciousily the brain sees black as a threatening colour and will pick it out first...

Who has proven this and where can I get more info about it?

PS: Don't tell me to Google it. I have, and I get pages of sites telling me high-visibility clothing is a good thing.

[davereid]

Double chance of survival ... this is what is called overwhelming statistical confirmation.
I'll take a doubling of my survival odds thanks.

You will not be able to demonstrate a statistical effect of this magnitude by any other gear ammendment on bikes

Actually, I can't demonstrate ANY statistical effect of helmets on survivability of a major motorcycle accident. Thats why I published the chart, as I don't think it was represented in the NZ data.

Overseas data seems to show some improvement of outcomes, depending on what you read. Or maybe it doesnt.

The only thing we can all agree on is that riding a motorcycle is many, many times more dangerous than driving a car.

Do you accept that the "majority" has the right to ban "risky" behavior by others because it might cost them money ?

Then, if you understand that the safest motorcycle and rider is still incredibily dangerous when compared to the safest car, you must advocate the banning of the motorcycle .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For my money, I don't accept that it gives other the right to ban things I do.

I deliberately, and in an informed manner take risks. I do it for fun. My motorcycle is transport. So is the bus. I CHOOSE to ride my motorcycle.

On the bright side, I live at the end of 7km of rural road. On a sunny day, once I have turned off the main road, I take my helmet off, and putt quietly along, enjoying the sights, the smells and the wind in my hair.

Dangerous stuff. To think I would risk it, just for enjoyment. Weird.