General bitch (oops, I mean discussion) about bikers thread

[Ocean1]

There is much more bleating coming from those who don't like being told they should change. They may not believe that they have any need to change, and put up as many arguments against that as there are stars in the sky.
While KM (and others, myself included) keep putting forward just the one argument for change..."The rider is responsible for all that happens to them. Usually."

Firstly, nobody is omnipotent, they can't be responsible for everythingthat happens to them.

Even in those variables they can control what has their being responsible for what happens to them got to do with them changing behaviour? There's no rational argument for change there.

[Ocean1]

Who said anything about general transport riders?

I did. I suggested that professionals in industries that use advanced analisys as a safety tool are trained to a far higher level than your average driver or rider. Clear?

It seems pretty obvious what to do from this side.

You're on a side? I shouldn't expect objectivity in your comments, then?

[Katman]

You're on a side? I shouldn't expect objectivity in your comments, then?

That's ripe, coming from you.

[Spearfish]

All this talk about self determination is unsettling.....

I believe the bun-less KFC burger is why I'm fat, will eat a sponsored dozen to prove it, so its going to be hard shifting responsibility for my own riding "career" longevity onto myself...It just not the kiwi way...

No fear of falling off today though.... the little shytter conked out 45 min push from home!!

[Ocean1]

That's ripe, coming from you.

Still got nothing eh?

[Ender EnZed]

All the bleating on the topic comes from people who want OTHER PEOPLE to change.

Which "bleating" are we talking about here? The bleating for motorcyclists to change or the bleating for everything the fuck else to change so we can ride the same as always but with less crashing?

If you allow that then where does it stop? There's people who want SOMETHING done about most aspects of other peoples' behaviour. Follow that to it's logical conclusion. There's already laws restricting a wider range of bejaviour than at any time in history.

I agree with the sentiment and I don't think ANYONE here wants more laws. Which is precisely why I for one like to see less avoidable crashes, to avoid having more laws forced on us "for our own good". Not out of the goodness of my heart.

The rape and murder thing isn't worthy of a reply.

It was to illustrate my point that we aren't free to behave how it suits us.

[Ender EnZed]

Even in those variables they can control what has their being responsible for what happens to them got to do with them changing behaviour? There's no rational argument for change there.

Premise 1: Crashing a motorcycle results in pain.
Premise 2: Pain is something I should avoid.

Conclusion: I should avoid crashing a motorcycle.

[Ender EnZed]

In an ideal Safety Management System, the rider would also be trained to identify all the latent failures, or recognise that all the other holes in the cheese were becoming aligned. And have a reporting system (BRONZ or similar or even the cops) that will allow such feedback to occur.

The road makers, planners, law enforcers and anyone who has anything to do with riding a motorcycle on a road would also be able to recognize an error chain and act accordingly. In other words a total approach to improving rider safety, heavily weighted toward education, rather than just beating up the riders post an accident (not how a good educator behaves too) for their slip ups.

Much of this is never going to happen. There is simply not the same economic and societal benefit to be gained from reducing motorcycle crashes that there is/was with regard to aviation. It would be far easier to just ban them.

[Ocean1]

Which "bleating" are we talking about here? The bleating for motorcyclists to change or the bleating for everything the fuck else to change so we can ride the same as always but with less crashing?

The bleating from those who want other people to change.

Those who would rather the roads didn't have fucking great posts on the outside of corners with signs attached indicating there's a corner here have a valid point.

I agree with the sentiment and I don't think ANYONE here wants more laws. Which is precisely why I for one like to see less avoidable crashes, to avoid having more laws forced on us "for our own good". Not out of the goodness of my heart.

So you want other people to change so the government doesn't have to make them? What makes you think the government has any more right to dictate that than you do? Or, in fact that they'd have any more success than your bleating?

Lets see, an example might be in order... If you watch closely you'll notice people want to travel faster than they're currently allowed to. What makes you think making the speed limits more restrictive would change that behaviour?

It was to illustrate my point that we aren't free to behave how it suits us.

There is no ethical reason for anyone to attempt to dictate how anyone else should behave if they're not hurting anyone else. And no, minimising ACC's costs doesn't count as hurting someone else..

[Ocean1]

Premise 1: Crashing a motorcycle results in pain.
Premise 2: Pain is something I should avoid.

Conclusion: I should avoid crashing a motorcycle.

Yes. What's your point?

[Ender EnZed]

The bleating from those who want other people to change.

So that's everyone here?

So you want other people to change so the government doesn't have to make them and me?

Yes.

What makes you think the government has any more right to dictate that than you do? Or, in fact that they'd have any more success than your bleating?

They're reasonably successful at doing most of what they've decided to do. I wouldn't ride a bike around town with no number plate and expect nothing to come of it after being seen by a cop.

Lets see, an example might be in order... If you watch closely you'll notice people want to travel faster than they're currently allowed to. What makes you think making the speed limits more restrictive would change that behaviour?

I most certainly do not want more restrictive speed limits. In my earlier post I said it would suit me to ride at 100 MPH on SH1.

There is no ethical reason for anyone to attempt to dictate how anyone else should behave if they're not hurting anyone else.

I agree.

And no, minimising ACC's costs doesn't count as hurting someone else..

To be honest ACC costs don't bother me too much at the moment. But I don't want to see motorcycling become progressively more expensive as political momentum builds to get rid of what is seen as an unnecessary burden on the tax payer.

[Ender EnZed]

Firstly, nobody is omnipotent, they can't be responsible for everythingthat happens to them.

Even in those variables they can control what has their being responsible for what happens to them got to do with them changing behaviour? There's no rational argument for change there.

Premise 1: Crashing a motorcycle results in pain.
Premise 2: Pain is something I should avoid.

Conclusion: I should avoid crashing a motorcycle.

Yes. What's your point?

I was proposing that there is in fact a rational argument for change.

[Ocean1]

So that's everyone here?

On the contrary. I, for one am utterly ambivalent if you choose to hold self contradictory ideas about ethical behaviour.

And I’d remain so even if ‘Er Majesty’s gubmint decided to tax me more because you behaved as you do.

[Ocean1]

I was proposing that there is in fact a rational argument for change.

That's not it, trust me.

The fact that we are all individually responsible for our own behavior is no reason anyone should change that behavior. It sounds like you're assuming anyone whose behavior you don't approve of hasn't adequately evaluated to consequences of that behavior. That's an arrogant assumption.

[Ender EnZed]

The fact that we are all individually responsible for our own behavior is no reason anyone should change that behavior. It sounds like you're assuming anyone whose behavior you don't approve of hasn't adequately evaluated to consequences of that behavior. That's an arrogant assumption.

That doesn't make it false.