Protective clothing legislation?

[90s]

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

This does not follow at all - in public policy the cost-benefit analysis allows for risks (ie. how many motorcyclists will be killed and the associated costs) against the benefits. This is why recently a minister here was saying that maybe bicyle helmets could be made optional - in accidents more cyclists will die, but the benefits elsewhere in the region of reduced cardio-vasular disease if many more people cycled would outweight this. This is not an argument that needs address that all cyclists without helmets would be more likely to be injured or not.

Currently I am waiting to have a bolt through my knee as part of a sporting injury. Although this is a large ACC cost the costs of a less-fit population would outweigh short-term savings.

I would never advocate the banning of the motorcycle. I've been riding them over 20 yrs and will continue to do so. But I will encourage sensible legislation that will make the roads safer for myself, for noobs and fools who know no better, and other road users. Wearing helmets will help in this. But I will only support legislation where the scientific rather than emotional or "common sense" evidence is clear.

You might say its hard to value human life. Actually my local council in its cost-benefit analysis or making changes to a dangerous corner put the figure at $24,000 - less than you might imagine.

[snowman]

I think more time should be on educating other motorists about bikes....

As for Hi-vis vests, fuck that!