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

[Katman]

If we allow restrictions on ACC and other forms of public funded healthcare based on "unacceptable risk" where do we draw the line?

I'm interested to know where you draw the line.

Should we allow hoards of Rossi wannabes to create mayhem carving up the Coro Loop every weekend simply because we don't have the right to tell them that it's unacceptable? - even if by allowing it we see the eventual demise of Motorcycling?

How many deaths per weekend do you think we should allow?

How high a price are you prepared to pay for others to have the right to fuck things up for you.

[MSTRS:Me]

The taxpayer (TP) pays

Actually, the people who pay their vehicle regos are the ones doing the paying for. A much smaller group than the taxpayer. Which means that the effect on the group is greater...

So, actually, safety gear is both an individual choice and a collective responsibility.

And there are too many people who don't think they owe society anything. JFK comes to mind...'Think not what the state can do for you, but what can you do for the state"

It'd be nice if someone could opt out of the system e.g. wear no gloves, bin and get a hand injury, pay for your own hand treatment. Now, THAT is personal choice.

A sliding scale of cover? A nice thought, already done on KB some time ago, and mercilessly stamped on. Just like ideas of legislating for certain standards is in this thread.
But you are right, and it should be supported by SWB at least, who seems to be advocating the individual's right to do as they please. Which is fine as long as they are the ones doing the paying, if it all turns pear shaped.

[davereid]

It's fairly easy to counter. The taxpayer (TP) pays for the ambulance, the A&E, the cosmetic surgeon reconstructing the face. Society covers the cost of the individuals stupidity.

I didn't ask to pay tax, but I get to pay it anyway.
Similarly, I didn't ask to be a beneficiary of the health system, but I am.

So to then tell me that its OK to use force to minimise my likelihood of drawing on a tax system I didn't want to be part of anyway sort of makes me feel underwhelmed with concern .!

[MSTRS:Me]

Someone injured in a vehicle crash has their treatment cost/s paid for out of ACC's motor fund. Nothing to do with taxpayer...

[rastuscat]

Hi All

I'm aware that ACC pays. Given that most people who pay ACC levies also pay tax, I just used the term taxpayers.

I regard having to pay ACC as just another form of tax, so again, I think the taxpayer covers the cost.

In summary, have choice, but accept the consequences. Like, wear jandals on a bike, but then cover the cost of your own foot injuries.

I just regard allowing people to do completely stupid things (t-shirt, shorts and jandals on a moped) that cost the taxpayer (oh alright, ACC payer) as really odd.

How stupid is the law in this country that lets someone ride a high performance bike (or a low performance one for that matter) wearing a G-string and a helmet?

I considered charging a person riding a moped on Moorhouse Ave wearing a t-shirt, boardies and sandals (oh, and a helmet) with Careless Driving. I don't think riding in that gear is the action of a careful and prudent driver. Got canned by my boss.

Maybe it truly is me that is out of step.

[MSTRS:Me]

I'm aware that ACC pays. Given that most people who pay ACC levies also pay tax, I just used the term taxpayers.

Big difference.
Be fair to say that there are some 3 million taxpayers? More, if you consider GST. Less than a million vehicle owners paying into ACC's motor fund?
Because the pool is smaller and funded by less people, the effect on each individual's contributions is greater. Getting OT, but this is the problem that pollies have created by splitting ACC into different funds...m/c crash costs have a greater effect as a % of the whole, so we got hit with bigger increases than most of the other contributors.

[Spearfish]

Hi All

I'm aware that ACC pays. Given that most people who pay ACC levies also pay tax, I just used the term taxpayers.

I regard having to pay ACC as just another form of tax, so again, I think the taxpayer covers the cost.

In summary, have choice, but accept the consequences. Like, wear jandals on a bike, but then cover the cost of your own foot injuries.

I just regard allowing people to do completely stupid things (t-shirt, shorts and jandals on a moped) that cost the taxpayer (oh alright, ACC payer) as really odd.

How stupid is the law in this country that lets someone ride a high performance bike (or a low performance one for that matter) wearing a G-string and a helmet?

I considered charging a person riding a moped on Moorhouse Ave wearing a t-shirt, boardies and sandals (oh, and a helmet) with Careless Driving. I don't think riding in that gear is the action of a careful and prudent driver. Got canned by my boss.

Maybe it truly is me that is out of step.

I'm glad your boss did can it but I understand your frustration.

If you do down that path then you could say that learner bikers who jump on an aprilia rs250 with just the basic handling course and a scratch card under their belt should be charged because they haven't completed approved training courses, or even going from a 125 scooter, getting their 6f and buying a modified R1 never having ridden a geared bike let alone the amount of power on tap, all probably reckless/careless driving but they are well within the law. (Maybe they could challenging Darwins Law of the fool, but that's another matter.)

[swbarnett]

Having said that, it is scientifically possible to jump without a parachute and survive if you can match your angle of fall with that of a long smooth piece of land, like a ski slope for example. Just needs someone with the balls to prove it.

And then there's the WWII pilot who's parachute didn't function and survived a fall from 30,000 feet (or something like it) by crashing through pine branches that broke his fall.

[swbarnett]

I'm interested to know where you draw the line.

Should we allow hoards of Rossi wannabes to create mayhem carving up the Coro Loop every weekend simply because we don't have the right to tell them that it's unacceptable? - even if by allowing it we see the eventual demise of Motorcycling?

How many deaths per weekend do you think we should allow?

How high a price are you prepared to pay for others to have the right to fuck things up for you.

Where I draw the line is not the issue. From what you've posted I don't think we're that far apart in this. The issue here is that I don't have the right to impose my line on someone that has a different view of the matter without first demonstrating that what they're doing that I object to has a direct affect on someone other than themselves. For example, if someone were pointing a gun at me about to pull the trigger I do have a right to prevent them from doing so.

[Berries]

And then there's the WWII pilot who's parachute didn't function and survived a fall from 30,000 feet (or something like it) by crashing through pine branches that broke his fall.

There's quite a few examples of people surviving total malfunctions, landing on a newly laid lawn at an emergency doctors house is one I remember, but it is pure luck. 99.99% of the time you are going to bounce and die. That's why they don't need legislation to tell people who are jumping out of planes that they need to wear a parachute, it's kind of obvious, and why there is no comparison with riding gear.

[swbarnett]

In summary, have choice, but accept the consequences. Like, wear jandals on a bike, but then cover the cost of your own foot injuries.

I can certainly understand what you're saying. I used to think this way. It comes down the concept of user pays as you say. The problem is that who the user is is usually misunderstood. You think the user in this case is the rider. True, to a point. However, the user is also society at large as it also benifits. Because this rider has the right to choose wether or not to wear the gear we also enjoy the right to choose where we live, what job we do, and a miriad of other freedoms we take for granted. In the long term you can;t have one without the other. I justify sharing the cost of returning this rider to health because we all benifit from them being able to walk again. It makes it easier for them to be a useful member of society instead of a drain.

How stupid is the law in this country that lets someone ride a high performance bike (or a low performance one for that matter) wearing a G-string and a helmet?

Totally agree. Easily solved - remove the helmet law.

I considered charging a person riding a moped on Moorhouse Ave wearing a t-shirt, boardies and sandals (oh, and a helmet) with Careless Driving. I don't think riding in that gear is the action of a careful and prudent driver. Got canned by my boss.

Maybe it truly is me that is out of step.

Would you be happy if you were riding in ATG and you were charged with careless by someone who doesn't think riding is the action of a careful and prudent driver?

[swbarnett]

There's quite a few examples of people surviving total malfunctions, landing on a newly laid lawn at an emergency doctors house is one I remember, but it is pure luck. 99.99% of the time you are going to bounce and die. That's why they don't need legislation to tell people who are jumping out of planes that they need to wear a parachute, it's kind of obvious, and why there is no comparison with riding gear.

Exactly. Nothing is ever certain in daily life but this comes damn close.

[Ocean1]

Someone injured in a vehicle crash has their treatment cost/s paid for out of ACC's motor fund. Nothing to do with taxpayer...

So ACC levies aren't mandatory?

I'll be cancelling my subscription forthwith.

[Ocean1]

I didn't ask to pay tax, but I get to pay it anyway.
Similarly, I didn't ask to be a beneficiary of the health system, but I am.

So to then tell me that its OK to use force to minimise my likelihood of drawing on a tax system I didn't want to be part of anyway sort of makes me feel underwhelmed with concern .!

Zakerly. In fact if I paid the average individual cost in levies I'd be well pleased with the value of the service.

As they'd be keen to get me back on the earn ASAP.

But I don't. And the level of their service isn't indexed to the amount I pay.

So fuckem.

[Ocean1]

For example, if someone were pointing a gun at me about to pull the trigger I do have a right to prevent them from doing so.

Dude, see.... Katman figures that there's a guy pointing a gun at him and demanding cash from you. And as far as he can make out it's your fault he's at risk.