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

[Grubber]

How would you feel if the position was reversed and you were pressured to not wear the gear because everyone around you thought you were a wimp for doing so? Or if those gearless daredevils got a law inacted preventing you from wearing the gear?

I wear the gear because I choose to. I like having the right to choose and respect another's right to choose not to.

Forgive me if i'm wrong but.....doesn't this sound like the school yard peer pressure we all warn our kids not to get involved with???

[Ocean1]

You clearly don't have a fucking clue what I figure.

I , along with most everyone else (excepting those still stuck on their mothers' tit) have noticed that there's very little evidence that you figure anything at all, dude.

[Ocean1]

Of course they aren't. Stop driving/riding/working for pay. Then you won't be asked for any contributions.

And my motorcycle is actually a space ship.

It's a fookin' tax. What the fuck else do you call an involuntary charge for services you didn't ask for?

[Berries]

Nothing personal but piss off???
So your view entitles you to eradicate all those that oppose it does it.
Jumping out of a plane with no chute is very much like riding naked. In either instance you may well live. It has happened but very much doubt it happened on purpose.

Nothing personal as in the comment wasn’t aimed at you, but in general to people who want to enforce their particular standards on me, when I think I am mature enough to make my own decision. I have no issue with the people who do ATGATT so am not eradicating their views at all.

In my view you are very lucky you haven't crashed, not saying you will, but not saying you won't. Maybe you should stop wearing seatbelts too perhaps or does that not enter this equation either, simply cause it doesn't suit your argument.

I never mentioned seatbelts because my bike doesn’t have one. I wear one when driving because it’s the law, it is fitted, it only takes half a second to put on, I don’t have to change out of it at my destination and it doesn’t cost anything.

Ok if you crash you may not die, but you will certainly receive some major injuries that I WILL PAY A PORTION OF.
Your arrogance in expecting me to do this annoys me..

Arrogance ? I haven’t asked that you pay a portion of the costs. I haven’t got a choice, and neither do you. I am annoyed by people crashing regardless of what they are wearing because both of us are paying their costs. For that very reason I am against the whole ACC ethos for road user injuries. I would prefer it if all of us paid an individual rate based on experience, age, crash history, etc etc, ie risk based rather than simply engine size based. But we have ACC and that’s the way it works. I personally think the bigger issue is the number of people crashing, not whether they had all of the approved gear on. It just seems like skirting round the main issue.

You say that you don't have ATG. Why??

Today’s riding gear is Shoei helmet, Dainese jacket, Belstaff gloves, Alpinestars boots and Levi’s jeans, fairly typical gear for me. I have just never got round to buying proper bike trousers. Simple as that really. I just don’t see why I should be forced to either.

[Katman]

For those of you crying about feeling pressured or forced into wearing adequate gear, I think you're being just a little over-dramatic.

All this thread is trying to do is to encourage the use of the correct gear.

It will be the government who will pressure or force you into it if encouragement doesn't work.

[Grubber]

Nothing personal as in the comment wasn’t aimed at you, but in general to people who want to enforce their particular standards on me, when I think I am mature enough to make my own decision. I have no issue with the people who do ATGATT so am not eradicating their views at all.


I never mentioned seatbelts because my bike doesn’t have one. I wear one when driving because it’s the law, it is fitted, it only takes half a second to put on, I don’t have to change out of it at my destination and it doesn’t cost anything.


Arrogance ? I haven’t asked that you pay a portion of the costs. I haven’t got a choice, and neither do you. I am annoyed by people crashing regardless of what they are wearing because both of us are paying their costs. For that very reason I am against the whole ACC ethos for road user injuries. I would prefer it if all of us paid an individual rate based on experience, age, crash history, etc etc, ie risk based rather than simply engine size based. But we have ACC and that’s the way it works. I personally think the bigger issue is the number of people crashing, not whether they had all of the approved gear on. It just seems like skirting round the main issue.


Today’s riding gear is Shoei helmet, Dainese jacket, Belstaff gloves, Alpinestars boots and Levi’s jeans, fairly typical gear for me. I have just never got round to buying proper bike trousers. Simple as that really. I just don’t see why I should be forced to either.

Fair enough on the first statement. don't think anyone is really doing that but instead just saying that they would think it better if you did.

2nd statement: The simple fact that we don't have that choice is fine by me although i would have to say your idea is good in practice. but because we don't have that oportunity then we must live with the system we have. That being the case, i resent the fact that i am forced somewhat to pay for your injuries and this is my point. No need to go down the track that you pay for them as well due to the system in place. The system is there and thats that...meaning i have to pay for your injuries and this is what i have a problem with.

3rd statement: It sounds to me like you have more than enough gear. Apart from the pants but i think you are close to ok.

[MarkH]

Today’s riding gear is Shoei helmet, Dainese jacket, Belstaff gloves, Alpinestars boots and Levi’s jeans, fairly typical gear for me. I have just never got round to buying proper bike trousers. Simple as that really. I just don’t see why I should be forced to either.

That doesn't sound too bad to me, the only thing I would suggest is that when you need a new pair of jeans the price of Dragin' Jeans is not that much more than Levis. Of course the protection isn't as good as with proper leathers, but it is better than standard jeans.

[MSTRS:Me]

For those of you crying about feeling pressured or forced into wearing adequate gear, I think you're being just a little over-dramatic.

All this thread is trying to do is to encourage the use of the correct gear.

It will be the government who will pressure or force you into it if encouragement doesn't work.

You're on to it. Almost.
It is that school of thought that some refuse to wear the gear because it 'doesn't affect anyone else' that started this off.
We go from there all the way to a truly radical idea...wear ATGATT, and then if you do have a crash, your injuries are likely to be less, meaning the cost of treating is less and the time spent recuperating is less. Everyone wins.

[Virago]

You're on to it. Almost.
It is that school of thought that some refuse to wear the gear because it 'doesn't affect anyone else' that started this off.
We go from there all the way to a truly radical idea...wear ATGATT, and then if you do have a crash, your injuries are likely to be less, meaning the cost of treating is less and the time spent recuperating is less. Everyone wins.

Or, perhaps go with the general public's opinion, and avoid the injuries altogether by not riding motorcycles at all. Who is to say that they are wrong and you are right?

After all, those non-bikers who stop to give assistance when you are injured (whether wearing ATGATT or not), are also affected by the consequences of your own “calculated risk”.

Personal risk is subjective. Don’t be too quick to impose your own perspective on others under the pretext of “It affects me too”. If you do so, you need to accept that others then have the right to do the same to you.

[swbarnett]

Obviously not a good communicator. Anyone else would have got my point....never mind, your on a mission, so it suits you better this way.

Actually i will expalin.....jumping out of a plane won't kill you just the same as riding naked won't kill you. It's the sudden stop that may well do that.
There is that better for you to understand!

The sudden stop is effectively inevitable if you jump out of a plane without a parachute. It's not even that likely if you ride naked - no more likely than riding with ATG.

[swbarnett]

Of course it is direct. A rider is hurt in a crash. The money machine rolls in to save him. He doesn't have gear? Chances are he'll be much more hurt. And the money machine gets to fork out more to save him.
How much more direct can you get?

I don't like un-necessary pain etc, so I'd be wearing the gear anyway.

Yes, a chain of events is started. However, the rider is not responsible for every link in that chain.

[swbarnett]

Forgive me if i'm wrong but.....doesn't this sound like the school yard peer pressure we all warn our kids not to get involved with???

Exactly, it is childish and unnecessary. The only reason I get involved in these debates is to perhaps reduce the likelihood of motorcycles being banned or ATGATT becoming compulsary.

[davereid]

Or, perhaps go with the general public's opinion, and avoid the injuries altogether by not riding motorcycles at all. Who is to say that they are wrong and you are right?

Exactly.

When you crash your vehicle, your choice of vehicle is very relevant. Your choice of safety gear much less relevant.

To most observers, riding a motorcycle is seen as the "Darwin Award" winning decision.

Your choice of helmet design, your back protector, and armoured boots are all but irrelevant to the concerned and affected viewer.

So my answer about the question posed by the OP "ATGATT - Why, - it doesn't affect anyone else" is

Yes it does.

But it doesn't affect them anywhere near as much as your decision to drive a motorcycle.

That's the clincher. Getting on two wheels in the first place is the decision that really affects your loved ones.

[Katman]

Or, perhaps go with the general public's opinion, and avoid the injuries altogether by not riding motorcycles at all. Who is to say that they are wrong and you are right?

Hence why our concern should be on changing the public's perception.

[MSTRS:Me]

Or, perhaps go with the general public's opinion, and avoid the injuries altogether by not riding motorcycles at all. Who is to say that they are wrong and you are right?

Point take. And it is a valid point. Which is why I agree with KM.