Law on wearing mc helmet inside a cage?

[peasea]

Rally drivers don't have any issues.....

You're being a moron again.

Rally drivers are on closed roads, looking predominately straight ahead and the vast majority (if not all) of them wear open-face lids.

[p.dath]

Which is why I wouldn't fuckin' bother if it were not for the law. Have you ever checked the stat's on broken necks in m/c accidents? I don't doubt that something needs to protect your gourd in a spill but helmets are not the whole answer. It's all good in a race car with a Hans device, but you ain't got that on a sickle.
...

I have look at some of the stats. There is a school of though that closed face helmets increase the incidence of base skull fractures at the back of your head (which is why some people think you should wear an open faced helmet). These accidents occurr when the front of your helmet takes an impact around the chin area the the energy transfers to the back of your skull. However, even accepting the increase in the number of these injuries, helmets are still considered safer over all.

If there was no law, and I was given the choice, I would wear one.

[peasea]

I have look at some of the stats. There is a school of though that closed face helmets increase the incidence of base skull fractures at the back of your head (which is why some people think you should wear an open faced helmet). These accidents occurr when the front of your helmet takes an impact around the chin area the the energy transfers to the back of your skull. However, even accepting the increase in the number of these injuries, helmets are still considered safer over all.

If there was no law, and I was given the choice, I would wear one.

"Given the choice"

Which we are not. Like riding a bicycle; in NZ it's compulsory to wear silly head gear, I'd ride a bicycle if were not for the stupid helmets. I've got one going rusty. Overall, I'd agree, some head protection is a good idea, it's just that what is available is second rate 'overall'.

[p.dath]

"Given the choice"

Which we are not. Like riding a bicycle; in NZ it's compulsory to wear silly head gear, I'd ride a bicycle if were not for the stupid helmets. I've got one going rusty. Overall, I'd agree, some head protection is a good idea, it's just that what is available is second rate 'overall'.

But you do have the choice to ride a bike. The problem is if you decide to ride a bike without the safety kit, have an accident, and then you want *me* to pay *your* portion of the ACC bill for an accident that otherwise have cost less.

Having people wear protection makes it fairer on everyone else in NZ who pays ACC. Its in everyones best interest to minimise the total ACC bill required to cover all those that have accidents every year.

If there was no ACC, and you had to get private insurance, and your insurance company knows that it will cost more to rehabilitate you if you have an accident with no safety gear - what do you think your insurance company will do?
Either refuse to insure you if there is no safety gear, or charge you considerably more.

Remember, ACC is no-fault insurance.

[Ixion]

If there was no law, and I was given the choice, I would wear one.

So would I

And so did I, when we had a choice

But I object to being forced to wear one by some mindless chinless moron of a bureaucrat who probably never even rode a bike in his life

[p.dath]

So would I

And so did I, when we had a choice

But I object to being forced to wear one by some mindless chinless moron of a bureaucrat who probably never even rode a bike in his life

As I said before, if someone has a more expensive accident by not wearing a helmet then they remove the choice of everyone else to enjoy a cheaper ACC premium. I don't want to pay higher ACC premiums to cover those that don't take sensible pre-cautions. Neither do most other people since they complain about the cost of ACC, and we have been under paying by $1.5 billion.

That's fair, isn't it?

[Ixion]

But you do have the choice to ride a bike. The problem is if you decide to ride a bike without the safety kit, have an accident, and then you want *me* to pay *your* portion of the ACC bill for an accident that otherwise have cost less.

...

Hummph. In 50 odd years of two (and four) wheeling, I have not cost ACC , or their predecessors, NIMU , a cent (or a penny , in the case of NIMU).

When you have amassed as large a credit (and I'd comfortably wager that i pay a lot more in ACC levies each year than you do), then you may pontificate about me costing you money.

I very much suspect it is (or will be ) the reverse .

[peasea]

But you do have the choice to ride a bike. The problem is if you decide to ride a bike without the safety kit, have an accident, and then you want *me* to pay *your* portion of the ACC bill for an accident that otherwise have cost less.

Having people wear protection makes it fairer on everyone else in NZ who pays ACC. Its in everyones best interest to minimise the total ACC bill required to cover all those that have accidents every year.

If there was no ACC, and you had to get private insurance, and your insurance company knows that it will cost more to rehabilitate you if you have an accident with no safety gear - what do you think your insurance company will do?
Either refuse to insure you if there is no safety gear, or charge you considerably more.

Remember, ACC is no-fault insurance.

Hey, I get your point, do you get mine??
I'd agree to sign a waiver for ACC to ride 'helmet-less' if I could, for given occasions. Let's say I want to go to a biker funeral or ride the causeways of the SI without a lid. Fine, go for it, if the shit hits the fan, be it on your own head (pun intended) and get your own insurance, whatever the premium. Fuck ACC, they are a pack of useless, rip-off cunts with shiny arses, the sooner it is privatised the better.

If I choose to ride with no lid and have paid my premium to do so, what the fuck? To have some wanker in the beehive tell me how to ride really pisses me off. What's next? No boots, no cover? The number of twats I see riding through my town in summer in jandals is infuriating. You can ride in Speedos if you've got your lid on. Get my point?

Sensible gear is what is needed. Helmets are not 100% sensible.

[steve_t]

Why do you guys not ride bicycles just because you have to wear a helmet? Do you think others will think you look dorky? I always rode with one even before it was compulsory... to me it just makes sense... and has saved my noggin a few times ripping thru some slippery areas WAY too fast. However, I'm ATGATT on my motorbike too. Riding in jandals is IMHO retarded! Horses for courses I guess. Your own prerogative. I just don't understand why anyone would stop riding their bicycle because they have to wear a helmet. Worse is when I see people riding with their helmet on their handlebars

Or are you gonna say it's the principle of it and you should have the right to choose? Cos that's fair enuf too.

[p.dath]

Hey, I get your point, do you get mine??
I'd agree to sign a waiver for ACC to ride 'helmet-less' if I could, for given occasions. Let's say I want to go to a biker funeral or ride the causeways of the SI without a lid. Fine, go for it, if the shit hits the fan, be it on your own head (pun intended) and get your own insurance, whatever the premium. Fuck ACC, they are a pack of useless, rip-off cunts with shiny arses, the sooner it is privatised the better.

If I choose to ride with no lid and have paid my premium to do so, what the fuck? To have some wanker in the beehive tell me how to ride really pisses me off. What's next? No boots, no cover? The number of twats I see riding through my town in summer in jandals is infuriating. You can ride in Speedos if you've got your lid on. Get my point?

Sensible gear is what is needed. Helmets are not 100% sensible.

I don't know if you recall, but when National was last in power they actually introduced law to allow you to buy your own private insurance and opt out of ACC. However Labour came into power shortly afterwards, and repealed the act.
And then we were back to no option again.

If we had the option of allowing individuals to take out private insurance, then I really wouldn't care so much about what choice people decided to execute (assuming it doesn't endanger others ...), as it means everyone else isn't having to pay for their choice.

But I especially wouldn't want it to be like it is in the US. Where you have your accident and they effectively refuse to treat you until it can be established that you can pay (usually by proving you have insurance). Despite people's complaints, I think our ACC system is far superior. You know if you have an accident you can rely on an ambulance turning up, and you wont be turned away at a Hospital. Sure you might have to wait 12 to 24 hours to get treated ... but you will get treated (if you can stay alive long enough ...).

[peasea]

I don't know if you recall, but when National was last in power they actually introduced law to allow you to buy your own private insurance and opt out of ACC. However Labour came into power shortly afterwards, and repealed the act.
And then we were back to no option again.

If we had the option of allowing individuals to take out private insurance, then I really wouldn't care so much about what choice people decided to execute (assuming it doesn't endanger others ...), as it means everyone else isn't having to pay for their choice.

But I especially wouldn't want it to be like it is in the US. Where you have your accident and they effectively refuse to treat you until it can be established that you can pay (usually by proving you have insurance). Despite people's complaints, I think our ACC system is far superior. You know if you have an accident you can rely on an ambulance turning up, and you wont be turned away at a Hospital. Sure you might have to wait 12 to 24 hours to get treated ... but you will get treated (if you can stay alive long enough ...).

You appear to have a head on your shoulders. A rare thing on kb.

I would, however disagree on the ACC thing.

My ideal is; millions for all!

[scumdog]

In some states in the USA you can ride helmetless IF you have the appropriate private insurance - but with ACC we won't see THAT idea going ahead.

BTW: I wear a 'shortie' helmet for most of my riding and would wear it the majority of the time even if it was not mandatory.

[peasea]

In some states in the USA you can ride helmetless IF you have the appropriate private insurance - but with ACC we won't see THAT idea going ahead.

BTW: I wear a 'shortie' helmet for most of my riding and would wear it the majority of the time even if it was not mandatory.

Because?
Because?

[Skunk]

Rally drivers don't have any issues.....

Correct.

You're being a moron again.

Rally drivers are on closed roads, looking predominately straight ahead and the vast majority (if not all) of them wear open-face lids.

Wrong. Rally drivers must drive on open roads from stage to stage. That's why their cars are road legal.
Been there, done that. Wore the helmet.

It's NOT illegal.

[Usarka]

But you do have the choice to ride a bike. The problem is if you decide to ride a bike without the safety kit, have an accident, and then you want *me* to pay *your* portion of the ACC bill for an accident that otherwise have cost less.

Fuck off and stop riding a bike. You're more likely to crash than a car driver and if you do you expect *me* to pay for it?

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.