ACC - Should wearing safety gear be a legal requirement?

[p.dath]

Tell us do you truly want to be regulated

We are already regulated. We have to wear helmets, ride on the left hand side of a marked road, get a WOF and rego for on-road use, etc. Do you want all existing regulations repealed (I know James would ).

Its about personal and freedom of choice
...
so simple put, don't fall off... Get taught how to handle the bike better, and defensively...to avoid the situation in the first place... oh wait a loop of more education

Do you really feel that any motorcycle accident happened because the person wanted it to? Its called an accident because, well, it was unplanned. No one really wants to get seriously hurt.

I'm am ATGATT always have been, but being told I must wear XYZ approved gear is over the top. The more you regulate people the more you will find people will rebel.

I don't notice anyone rebelling against the helmet law. I'm sure there are a few, but I certainly don't notice them.

Would you advocated that helmet regulation be repealed for the same reason?

All our importers will have to have all the gear tested to meet these new standards, who passes and fail.

What new standard? In my original post I said a basic level of safety. In the poll I didn't even mention a standard. If we did have to enforce an actual standard I would suggest we borrow someone else's, such as the European's.
In one of the original posts I suggested garments that covered the skin (refer to the poll for more info), and suggested that anything tougher requirements be considered maybe 3 years later to see if any impact could be felt.

It may save money for ACC but that money saved won't go on better roads, or driver education it will most likely go on regulating you.

I agree that we do want the most bang for our buck. Transit NZ do a lot of work upgrading NZ roads all the time. It's really expensive, and only a little bit can be done each year. A one of regulatory change should be much cheaper.

BUT I concede - the poll clearly shows about half the rider population is dead against any further regulatory requirements and would rather continue to pay what they do now for the freedom they currently enjoy. I'm amongst the 1/3 minority that would like tougher regulations to reduce the medical cost of injuries, and what I have to pay.

There are already regulations in place for on the learning side, and you have in through out your life... you must go to school from the age of 5. To start teaching you the tools of what you need to know in life. Maybe they need to start teach in the later years when the kids are just below the driving age more about driving, the dangers the safety, the stupid, the dangers, of drink driver, modding your car (or bike)

Alas, no matter how much education you offer, even for free, some people just wont take it up, or will learn the risk but accept it.

Make the learning side of getting the license better than what is and a bit tougher on the younger ones getting a license

You want to tighten regulations on getting a licence, but leave them unchanged as soon as you have said licence (said tounge in cheek)?

[LIST][*]No alcohol levels while driving... zero, nada, zip[*]HP rating and restriction (both cage and bike)[*]No pillion or passengers.

Strongly agree with the above.

ACC doesn't pay if you have broken these restrictions (taking responsibility for your actions)

[/QUOTE]

Being a no-fault system, having conditional ACC would never fly. But perhaps if we bring back competition to ACC those who can't get insurance anywhere else will use ACC, and those that can will get cheaper private insurance.

[p.dath]

Not only that, Mr Dath seems to think that a law will mean that people will obey.

Haha. If all people "obeyed" then laws wouldn't need penalties or enforcement. So I guess using that logic then the regulation would also need a penalty of sufficient magnitude so as to make people want to comply.

But even I'm not keen on stiff penalties for minor issues. The law should be flexible enough to realise everyone makes mistakes.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws or regulations. What it does do is give Police another "tool" to help protect the safety of everyone.

He still hasn't responded to the comment about a fair proportion of big bike injury accidents being attributed to riders either without a license or lacking the appropriate class 6 license to be riding a big bike in the first place.

Sorry James, I must have missed that post. I haven't seen any info about that, but lets pretend its 10% of riders. The ACC levy is taken against the bike, not the rider.
How does the licence status of the accident victim affect the cost of ACC?

[no_8wire]

Because those that are willing to break the conditions of their license, or ride with out one, (i.e big bike accidents) would more than likely have the same level of respect for any new law that sets standards for their clothing as their license. i.e none...


Basically saying that to those most at risk these changes you propose will not affect them at all.

[p.dath]

Because those that are willing to break the conditions of their license, or ride with out one, (i.e big bike accidents) would more than likely have the same level of respect for any new law that sets standards for their clothing as their license. i.e none...


Basically saying that to those most at risk these changes you propose will not affect them at all.

I'm not so sure. It's pretty easy spotting a rider in a t-shirt on the road ...

EDIT: I've not seen any stats to suggest those without a licence require more expensive medical care than those with who have an accident. Lots of very experienced track riders have no licence ...

[davereid]

We are already regulated. We have to wear helmets, ride on the left hand side of a marked road, get a WOF and rego for on-road use, etc. Do you want all existing regulations repealed (I know James would ).
I don't notice anyone rebelling against the helmet law. I'm sure there are a few, but I certainly don't notice them.

Would you advocated that helmet regulation be repealed for the same reason?

Some rules are co-operative. Thats when no one is disadvantaged, like agreeing that we will drive on the left, and stop at intersections. These are good laws.

Helmet laws dont fall in this group. Thats because its my head, not yours, or the Kings.

I will, and do advocate for the end of helmet laws, sorry you havent noticed, should we meet face to face, thats something I will correct, and I'm sure you will remember.

Ive already published the data here, demonstrating the spectacular ineffectiveness of helmets so many times that the KB computer now rejects my chart !. (Although its never been refuted.)

You argue that because, (against my will), you have elected to take my money (by force) and use it to give me medical care.

Then when you discover that I get enjoyment from riding a motorcycle, and more enjoyment from riding it without a helmet, that you have the right to make me wear a helmet. Most likely by bashing me over the head with a baton because I dont co-operate. (thats a great way to prove you care)

I don't want to have an accident that kills me or maims me.

But, I enjoy lots of things, that really, arent that safe.

I love the taste, colour, smell, texture of the world. Sometimes that means riding a motorcycle, some times it means no helmet or no condom, because it my life, and I dont need you bashing me up because its not as safe as your world.

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

For those who taste, touch and enjoy, today, Helmetless I rode the length of Koputaroa Rd. 14km of country life. I felt the wind, its only 15deg today, but I saw the little valley I live in. New calves, and lambs, tractors flat out setting up, I imagine for the new potatoes, speeding along at 45 on my moped.

Cursing those who would make me safe by beating me up.

Still. If the weathers nice, I'll do it tomorrow.

[vifferman]

Do you hate your parents for passing on the fall over gene?

No, because they didn't - my mum fell over because she's old. I fell over because (a) I'm a dork, and (b) socks are not approved by ACC for safe transit while using a Pajero bumper bar as a shortcut while carrying an armful of tools.
Fuck ACC.
And fuck people who whenever something happens say, "There should be a law against that!" Or, "The Gummint should do summat!"

[James Deuce]

We are already regulated. We have to wear helmets, ride on the left hand side of a marked road, get a WOF and rego for on-road use, etc. Do you want all existing regulations repealed (I know James would ).

If you want to debate, you would do well to avoid that particular kind of hyperbole.

[p.dath]

Some rules are co-operative. Thats when no one is disadvantaged, like agreeing that we will drive on the left, and stop at intersections. These are good laws.

Helmet laws dont fall in this group. Thats because its my head, not yours, or the Kings.
...

Ahh, but ACC is co-operative. We all pool our funds together for the befit of the common good to help those who have an accident. The idea is the same, that ACC should dis-advantage no-one.

But wouldn't you call it a dis-advantage that more money was being taken out of your pocket for the co-operative common good, to help those that take risks that the majority of us would not like to take?

Unless of course, your a non-helmet wearing T-shirt wearing rider, who is likely to benefit greatly from ACC after your next [unplanned] accident. Because the cost of covering that bill would be far greater than the ACC premium you pay.
Nothing personal to your view. Just those with higher risk profiles are subsidised by those with lower risk profiles.

Of course, no one plans to have an accident. ACC is a compulsory insurance after all.

[James Deuce]

Sorry James, I must have missed that post. I haven't seen any info about that, but lets pretend its 10% of riders. The ACC levy is taken against the bike, not the rider.
How does the licence status of the accident victim affect the cost of ACC?

It effects ACC because they have to pay to fix, rehabilitate or bury the rider.

11% of riders between 2003 and 2007 injured or killed in motorcycle accidents were not licensed at the time of the accident and a further 7% had an unknown status. I rang about this and it essentially meant that the rider held a license on the old "lifetime" license scheme but it hadn't carried over onto the new photo id, essentially rendering them unlicensed in regard to class 6.

So overall, 18% of riders killed or injured during that period were either unlicensed or riding a motorcycle that didn't meet the restrictions of the Class 6 license they held.

Another quote from the MoT: "Despite the rule that learner and restricted licence holders are not permitted to ride motorcycles of greater than 250 cc engine capacity, ten percent of riders on learner licences, and 19 percent of riders on restricted licences, were riding bikes of over 250 cc at the time of their crashes."

The levy may well be against the bike's rego, but the bike is either written off or repaired by an insurance company or pribately repaired or abandonded. The person's injuries and rehab (or funeral) are contributed to by ACC. The issue is fixing the person.

http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...-Factsheet.pdf

[MarkH]

Ahh, but ACC is co-operative. We all pool our funds together for the befit of the common good to help those who have an accident. The idea is the same, that ACC should dis-advantage no-one.

But wouldn't you call it a dis-advantage that more money was being taken out of your pocket for the co-operative common good, to help those that take risks that the majority of us would not like to take?

Are you referring to every one of the following:
Skydiving
Bungy Jumping
Rugby
Motor Racing
Motorcycle riding
Fishing
Skateboarding
Mountain Biking
And many more activities that often lead to injury?

I don't agree with your idea of banning all these things - put me down as dissenting!

[James Deuce]

Haha. If all people "obeyed" then laws wouldn't need penalties or enforcement. So I guess using that logic then the regulation would also need a penalty of sufficient magnitude so as to make people want to comply.

No, no, no.

Capital punishment does not stop murder. Why would the threat of a fine for skipping approved motorcyle gear stop people from riding a scooter in jandals, t-shirt and shorts? Did you know, for instance, that some women who ride scooters deliberately buy a helmet a couple of sizes too big to try and avoid helmet hair? Harry Hurt, and Motorcyclist determined in some wide ranging tests (I posted a link to part one of the report in some thread recently) that a helmet that was too big was worse than no helmet at all. Are you going to suggest that people are fined for ill fitting helmets? Jackets that are too big to locate armour over joints? Gloves with fingers that are too long or short?

The fit of safety gear is more important than the price or the brand, provided it really does meet things like CE standards for armour, and ECE or AUS standards for helmets.

The legislative burden in NZ is so steep that the courts can't keep up and Rob "Himmler" Pope is suggesting turning the average cop into Judge Dredd.

The point I'm trying to make is: The people who ride motorcycles in gear that you view as inadequate are unlikely to heed pointless regulations about motorcycle safety equipment written by people with no knowledge of what comprises quality motorcyclist protection.

I'm fairly certain you might not be as well informed as you think you are, given your repeated misapprehensions about motorcycle dynamics and drive mechanisms, and the revelatory nature some of your posts take about basic fundamentals around riding a motorcycle that are covered in any basic handling skills class.

[James Deuce]

Are you referring to every one of the following:
Skydiving
Bungy Jumping
Rugby
Motor Racing
Motorcycle riding
Fishing
Skateboarding
Mountain Biking
And many more activities that often lead to injury?

I don't agree with your idea of banning all these things - put me down as dissenting!

There's no point arguing. I really do think we're dealing with a bored Labour ex-MP.

[yachtie10]

BUT I concede - the poll clearly shows about half the rider population is dead against any further regulatory requirements and would rather continue to pay what they do now for the freedom they currently enjoy. I'm amongst the 1/3 minority that would like tougher regulations to reduce the medical cost of injuries, and what I have to pay.

"Lies dammed lies and statistics" seems to be relevant

I see it as 59+22 / 59+22+36+8 = 64.8

See how statistics can be interpreted the way you want and I didnt even manipulate how the data was gathered

My point is you keep quoting statistics you dont seem to understand (I dont pretend to but I certainly don't think they are strictly ethically used)

[p.dath]

Are you referring to every one of the following:
Skydiving
Bungy Jumping
Rugby
Motor Racing
Motorcycle riding
Fishing
Skateboarding
Mountain Biking
And many more activities that often lead to injury?

I don't agree with your idea of banning all these things - put me down as dissenting!

Ahh but they don't have seperate ACC levies targeting them like road bikes do.

[YellowDog]

If ACC is expected to pick up the tab for medical bills after a bin, then they should be able to stipulate some conditions of their cover (like every other insurance policy).

Wearing speedos and a smile won't be enough.