ATGATT. Why? It doesn't affect anyone else?

[Katman]

Yes, my actions affect others. The only way to stop this is not to exist in the first place. The important point is to what degree others are affected and what part the other's own choices increase that affectation. For example, if I choose to climb a mountain and fall off it could be said that my choice to climb has an affect on my rescuers. However, by far the greater influence on whether or not my actions affect my rescuers is their decision to rescue me. My decision leeds to me lying in a pile of gore. My rescuers decision leeds to their phycological exposure to said gore.

What about when your actions influence TPTB to further restrict the freedom of others?

[PrincessBandit]

However, where we differ is in the word I've highlighted above. Did they really have to stop and help? Were they forced in to it?

NO. It was their choice to stop. It was their choice to bear witness and pick up the pieces, not the downed rider. The OP could have chosen to pass by and leave the rider to their fate.

I'm not suggesting that they should've passed by. I certainly would've done exacty as they did. What I'm asking them and others like them (including those who make picking up the pieces a career) to do is to stop blaming others for their choices.


And as for family, my wife would rather have me ride like a maniac naked as a jay bird and die in the process than sit around at home miserable.

I usually don't disagree with too much of what you say, but tbh, what you've said there sounds pretty mean spirited to me

And all I can say to that is I sure hope you never call upon her need to test that statement you've so boldly made

[Katman]

And as for family, my wife would rather have me ride like a maniac naked as a jay bird and die in the process than sit around at home miserable.

That's probably because she doesn't like you very much.

[davereid]

What about when your actions influence TPTB to further restrict the freedom of others?

TPTB should be resisted at all times...


“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.” P.-J. Proudhon

[yungatart]

The OP's point, I believe, is that they blamed the downed rider for their phycological suffering at having to pick up the pieces. I can sympothise and do get their point. It would affect me deeply if I were to pick up the pieces of such an incident.

However, where we differ is in the word I've highlighted above. Did they really have to stop and help? Were they forced in to it?

Yes, I did have to stop!
As a nurse, I take the Hippocratic Oath very seriously, and was honour bound to stop.
I did not suffer psychological harm as a result of doing so, nor did it affect me deeply, but I was pissed off at the selfishness of the rider's actions.

With respect, you missed my point completely.

[jono035]

Yes, I did have to stop!
As a nurse, I take the Hippocratic Oath very seriously, and was honour bound to stop.
I did not suffer psychological harm as a result of doing so, nor did it affect me deeply, but I was pissed off at the selfishness of the rider's actions.

With respect, you missed my point completely.

There seems to have been a lot of that going around in this thread, so far...

[swbarnett]

Yes, I did have to stop!

I beg to differ. It was your choice. Irrespective of the fact that the choice was made when you chose to become a nurse. It is also a choice you make on a daily basis to not go against the oath you took.

As a nurse, I take the Hippocratic Oath very seriously, and was honour bound to stop.

I agree completely. However, your choice to take the Hippocratic Oath in the first place was what led to you stopping. Not the rider's decision to ride without gear.

I did not suffer psychological harm as a result of doing so, nor did it affect me deeply,

Glad to hear it. I have great respect for those who can do this for a career and stay sane.

but I was pissed off at the selfishness of the rider's actions.

With respect, you missed my point completely.

Actually, you've just stated what I said in a different way. To call them selfish is to lay the blame for you stopping on them.

To call a rider selfish for not wearing the gear is to call ALL motorcyclists selfish for riding in the first place. Nobody has the right to control how anyone else lives their life when the only direct concequences are to themselves.

[swbarnett]

Exactly.
Wear the gear or not...your choice, but if you choose not to, don't make excuses like 'It doesn't affect anyone else'

I don't. If my actions have a direct affect on others then those others have a right to influence my choices (even to make them in extreme cases - murder is a good example).

The important point is that decisions like not wearing the gear have no direct effect on anyone but yourself.

[swbarnett]

What about when your actions influence TPTB to further restrict the freedom of others?

This is a matter of duress. I refuse to live my life in a way that I abhor (or expect anyone else to) simply because someone in power may take it the wrong way and try to impose more draconian laws.

[swbarnett]

I usually don't disagree with too much of what you say, but tbh, what you've said there sounds pretty mean spirited to me

I can understand how it may seem that way. All I'm trying to say is that we need to be allowed to live our own lives how we see fit and take responsibility for our own choices. Even when we feel those choices are unfairly influenced by others. This includes both the choice to (or not to) wear the gear and the choice to pick up the pieces when someone else comes to grief.

I would prefer that there were no pieces to pick up. I'm not trying to advocate recklessness. However, if the cost is a severe loss of personal freedom then the cost is too high.

And all I can say to that is I sure hope you never call upon her need to test that statement you've so boldly made

Actually, it wasn't me that originally made it. It was her. She has said this to me on numerous occasions. And I to her.

[swbarnett]

That's probably because she doesn't like you very much.

On the contrary. She is my wife second and my best friend first. She just understands that psycological well being is far more important than being miserably safe.

[MSTRS:Me]

...take responsibility for our own choices..

But that's just it. We DON'T have to take responsibility. Collectively, others are going to 'pick up the tab' in time/money.
Individually, we need to be cognisant of that fact each and every time we decide to ride, how to ride and what to wear.
Others ARE affected by our freedom of choice. And if enough exercise that freedom irresponsibly (and come to grief), then that freedom to choose will be taken away.
If you really want to be free of responsibility to the rest of the community, then divorce your friends and family, and go live on a deserted island.

[swbarnett]

But that's just it. We DON'T have to take responsibility.

Well, no, we don't HAVE to do anything except obey the laws of physics. But if we all want to get along and create a free, caring, society we do.

Collectively, others are going to 'pick up the tab' in time/money.

Yes, but that's their choice, not mine. If I came to grief and noone wanted to help I have only myself to blame. I would feel no ill will to the people that just passed me by.

Individually, we need to be cognisant of that fact each and every time we decide to ride, how to ride and what to wear.
Others ARE affected by our freedom of choice.

I have no disagreement with this. Yes, me riding is a factor in that effect. This is like the rhetoric that "speed was a factor" in an accident when their are many other factors, any one of which could've stopped the accident if they were different.

Just as my decision to ride has an affect on others, so their decision to ... (drive, walk, marry me knowing I'm a biker or whatever...) adds to or detracts from that effect.

And if enough exercise that freedom irresponsibly (and come to grief), then that freedom to choose will be taken away.

Ah, but what does irresponsibly actually mean? Each individual has their own definition. Each society has their own definition. Each generation has their own definition. It s a fluid concept. Today it seems that riding without the gear is considered irresponsible by the majority of our society. In the 50s it was perfectly normal and widely accepted. Besides, if we start thinking "we better do x or TPTB will make x compulsory" then all we've done is create a de-facto law that has exactly the same affect as the law we're trying to avoid.

If you really want to be free of responsibility to the rest of the community, then divorce your friends and family, and go live on a deserted island.

I don't want to be free of responsibility. This is exactly my point. Personal responsibility. I'll take responsibility for my decisions and you take responsibility for yours.

[Genie]

Yes, I did have to stop!
As a nurse, I take the Hippocratic Oath very seriously, and was honour bound to stop.
I did not suffer psychological harm as a result of doing so, nor did it affect me deeply, but I was pissed off at the selfishness of the rider's actions.

With respect, you missed my point completely.

Watched tv the other evening and this fella on a bike meet a car bumper...all his gear stopped his body getting torn to shreds.....the bones on the inside we pretty wrecked but at least he didn't have to contend with loss of skin.

You are right Tart.....It does affect all of us and those that disagree are only doing so to be arguementative.

[davereid]

It does affect all of us and those that disagree are only doing so to be arguementative.

That's simplistic I think.

No one wants to have an accident, particularly old dudes like me, who were allowed to play "barbador" and climb trees, as we know what pain feels like, and we have done since we were 4.

But, for every carer who has been to a motorcycle accident and said "How terrible, why was the rider not wearing ATGATT", there has been a carer who has arrived and said "Why was this person riding a motorcycle".

Its influenced by where you live yourself.

The modern biker straps his helmet on like a religion, convinced by the safety gods that he has paid homage. The next generation will wear ATGATT, bright jackets, and be convinced they have made an adequate sacrifice.

I accept I am arguing with you.. but I'm not doing it just to be argumentative.

In these threads we see a basic dilemma.

Do we have the right to use force (laws) to make other people safer against their will ?
We generally argue that we do, as we have a community responsibility to help others, and therefore we have the authority, to limit their behaviour to make our wallets fatter, and avoid the discomfort of viewing them injured. That is to say, we accept that their actions will hurt us, even if only via a very indirect link.

For me, that's too long a bow to draw.

If my actions directly hurt you or your family, or cause environmental damage, or cause general hatred for for you, then you have the right to defend yourself.

But to impose compulsory insurance on me, and then to use force to modify my behaviour, to limit your risk in the insurance system, or to avoid offence if you see me injured, crosses the line.

The reason it crosses the line is not so much to do with ATGATT. Its more to do with the fact that now you have accepted it's OK to use force to get outcomes for things hat only distantly affect you, I can't see where it will stop.

You wont understand, until you are old enough to look back. And see all the things you used to do, that you enjoyed, are now illegal, just for your own good.

Be careful for what you ask for. You might end up very very very safe. And live for ever.