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

[swbarnett]

That seems just a shade selfish from where I'm sitting. Good luck to you.

Enjoying life is not selfish. The flow-on affects to those around you is exactly what we need.

Just remember - "Smile and the world smiles with you."

I plan to enjoy life and help those around me do likewise. All without compromising my freedom to choose my own destiny (or theirs).

[Grubber]

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.

What utter bollocks....what planet do you live on?
Every day you or i ride it has an effect on others. whether or not we crash doesn't matter.
Emotional worry on the low side of concern to massive upheaval if we crash and die, ending up leaving our loved ones without a Dad or brother or whatever.
Your rational leaves me shaking my head young fella.

[Grubber]

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.

don't think anyone is forcing you to wear the gear....just think it's a fucked up reason not to. Just because you don't like being "told". Sounds like a spoilt little kid to me. We can ride forever with good gear on just the same as without so why wouldn't ya. Just doesn't make sense to me unless your just trying to be a pratt. (not you personally, but...)

[Spearfish]

Some can learn by observation.
Some can only learn by experience.
Most use the best parts of the first two.
The rest just get offended if someone dares to tell them they have something to learn.

"Cover you skin'" seems just as offensive to the last of the list, having to be told through coercive laws is just fecken embarrassing.

[jonbuoy]

Good gear will save your skin from a light spill and if your lucky enough just to skid across the tarmac to a gentle stop you will walk away, the same rider in shorts and T shirt is in a bit of bother. But if anyone is under the false impression leathers are going to do much good at all in a high speed crash and hitting a solid object on the road - your dreaming.

Maybe look at peoples riding style before dismissing anyone not wearing ATGATT as a complete fool.

[Katman]

Maybe look at peoples riding style before dismissing anyone not wearing ATGATT as a complete fool.

That's actually a damn good call.

The ATGATT crowd would have a fit if they saw me head out on a WOF road test.

The correct attitude will save far more skin than leather ever will.

[Argyle]

That's actually a damn good call.

The ATGATT crowd would have a fit if they saw me head out on a WOF road test.

The correct attitude will save far more skin than leather ever will.

I can tell you out of PERSONAL experience that full leather suit with armour (Berik), back armour, good helmet, gloves and proper boots will save you from allot of injury.. I smashed right into the bonnet of a big VOLVO V70 doing 90kmh (will name that a high impact accident) and i was left with no broken bones, no scrape marks and an undamaged back.. I could just imagine how I would look like if I was wearing a pair of shorts and a vinyl dress jacket... These things save you, mate!

Ofcourse the correct attitude is very important, in my case the car turned infront of me...

[Katman]

I can tell you out of PERSONAL experience that full leather suit with armour (Berik), back armour, good helmet, gloves and proper boots will save you from allot of injury.. I smashed right into the bonnet of a big VOLVO V70 doing 90kmh (will name that a high impact accident) and i was left with no broken bones, no scrape marks and an undamaged back.. I could just imagine how I would look like if I was wearing a pair of shorts and a vinyl dress jacket... These things save you, mate!

Ofcourse the correct attitude is very important, in my case the car turned infront of me...

I never said that the correct gear is worthless (and most certainly will never pooh-pooh anyone pushing it's usage).

I do however, believe that the correct attitude is worth 10 times the correct gear.

[Berries]

I’m with SWB on this. If the OP hadn’t been a bike rider the question wouldn’t have been why wasn’t he wearing this piece of gear or that piece of gear, it would have been why was he riding a dangerous motorbike.

We all choose to ride motorbikes, which is a risk in itself. We all choose to wear the clothes we do when riding to reduce the risk of injury, or not, if we do crash. I shake my head sometimes when I see a t-shirt on a sportsbike, but I’m not going to go up to them and tell them they are wrong. Their choice, nothing to do with me. It’s the same with anyone who is wearing less gear than what I think is acceptable. But then some of the people on here will disagree strongly with what I think is an acceptable level of protection. It’s all relative. In the end we all ride bikes, and that is where the real risk lies. Stay upright and we could all ride naked.

What is ATGATT anyway ?
Does it mean full face helmets only ?
Does it specify helmet colour ? Should it, seeing as white helmets are supposed to improve visibility.
Replacement every 12 months ok with you ?
What do you mean you don’t consider a back protector as part of ATG ? Law says it is now.
What about the colour of your leathers, surely they should all be hi-viz yellow.

Slippery slope if you ask me.

So what happens if ATGATT is made compulsory ? Well, the road toll won’t come down, so the next step must be even more protection, like neck braces and one piece air suits. And if that doesn’t work ? Eventually the conclusion will be that motorbikes are dangerous, and the only way to make them safer is to build a metal cage around them.

The best idea is not to crash.

And don’t ride naked.
Unless you are really really fit.

[Berries]

Talking of ATGATT, surely linked brakes and ABS will do more to reduce the carnage than clothing - prevent the crash happening in the first place. Should ATGATT therefore refer to the bike as well ?

[Ocean1]

Talking of ATGATT, surely linked brakes and ABS will do more to reduce the carnage than clothing - prevent the crash happening in the first place. Should ATGATT therefore refer to the bike as well ?

I understand the good systems are pretty good. But some aren’t worth the ink on the glossy brochure.

The technology exists to prevent almost all traction loss issues, within reason. Wouldn’t want to see it made mandatory though, even if I chose to use it.

I reckon most solo accidents are caused by panic, sometimes from just a rogue perception rather than an actual unsafe velocity. I’ve seen reasonably experienced riders stand a bike up under brakes mid-corner purely because their brains have had a wee systems crash.

Think it’s possible to teach people to manage those moments, not sure many would survive the lesson if the classroom is the road though.

[swbarnett]

Every day you or i ride it has an effect on others. whether or not we crash doesn't matter.

I totally agree. I've never said otherwise. The word direct is the important point. By direct I mean (as an extreme example) if you choose to commit murder.

Your rational leaves me shaking my head young fella.

Some might call me young but I was out of high school several years before my bike was built.

All I'm advocating is personal responsibility.

[mister.koz]

I never said that the correct gear is worthless (and most certainly will never pooh-pooh anyone pushing it's usage).

I do however, believe that the correct attitude is worth 10 times the correct gear.

...
All I'm advocating is personal responsibility.

I'm with you guys here, although i don't think anything takes the importance away from good gear.

ABS, linked breaks, traction control etc etc etc, none of this will replace smart thinking or will stop you flying off the road if you have over-cooked the corner or landed yourself in a patch of diesel while leaned over, only skill and experience will (and sometimes a bit of blind luck).

Even with a good attitude, a well maintained bike, lots of training and all the forethought in the world it is still possible to get into a situation where you are going to kiss the road, a car or other hard obstacles so why not wear good gear too?

If I saw someone on the side of the road in bits, even if I knew they were a complete idiot I would still do my best to help in any way I can. From first hand experience - waking up in a pool of metallic smelling red stuff and quickly realizing that you are broken in many places - there really is nothing like someone being there to help when you need it.

[davereid]

don't think anyone is forcing you to wear the gear....just think it's a fucked up reason not to. Just because you don't like being "told". Sounds like a spoilt little kid to me. We can ride forever with good gear on just the same as without so why wouldn't ya. Just doesn't make sense to me unless your just trying to be a pratt. (not you personally, but...)

Sadly I am forced to wear the gear, although its a rule I regularly break.

On a summers day, I like a quiet putt down a country road, helmet-less. I have done it for years, it was legal once ya know, and its a very enjoyable thing to do.

That's the point. I do it because, like sex without a condom, its just a little better.

That's why I ride a motorcycle instead of a car. Its just a little bit more fun than the car.

All that has happened, is that after 40 years of helmet laws, most bikers don't know what sex without a condom feels like. And if they try it, after just a few minutes they are scared, and run back and put the helmet on.

So, they now feel happy, even smug about banning helmet-less riding.

Your children will feel happy about banning ATGATT less riding.

Your grandchildren will likely feel that about any riding.

None of this means, that we should never wear a condom.

[MarkH]

I'm against legislation - there will always be people that break the law anyway.

But:
When you see someone riding a motorcycle in shorts, jandals, short sleeved shirt and a helmet - you can't help but think of how bad things would be in an accident. When you see that person come off a roundabout and open the throttle - it looks like fun but would it be any less fun with some proper footwear and a pair of gloves?

I'll accept that even with the thermal lining unzipped and removed from my leather jacket it is still a bit warm to wear that jacket in summer. I'll accept that my Draggin' Jeans are warmer than I'd like in hot weather. I'll accept that my hands can sweat even in my summer gloves. I'll accept that socks and shoes are going to be hotter on your feet than jandals. But if some clown pulls out at an intersection and knocks me off my bike sending me sliding down the road - I can't accept the pain of the road rash that I would get if I didn't have gloves and was wearing only a t-shirt and a pair of shorts.

If things go wrong I want at least some basic protection - not just for my head, but my hands are pretty useful too so a pair of motorcycle gloves has to be worth while - being unable to use your hands for weeks/months would be absolutely horrible. You'd have to have someone else wipe your arse for you after having a crap! (who says not wearing the gear doesn't directly affect anyone else?)