Price-affordable BHS test in Wellington?

[FJRider]

And the problem with making it compulsory is?[

Fewer chances for Darwins theory applicants to prove/disprove their case for continued existence ...

Are you saying that if it were not compulsory you wouldn't wear a helmet?

It would depend entirely on how it is written into legislation ... and its requirements. And it may not be a motorcyclist writing the legislation.

[davereid]

And the problem with making it compulsory is?

Are you saying that if it were not compulsory you wouldn't wear a helmet?

Thats what safety nazis do. They use compulsion to make other people safer. Right now, we are looking at a safety nazi wanting to make motorcycling safer by forcing safety on everyone. It will work too. It will make motorcycling a little safer.

But eventually, we embolden the next nazi. Who wont be trying to make motorcycling safer. He will want to make transport safer.

So he will want me in a volvo, not on a suzuki.

And yes, for what its worth, I often do things that are not best health and safety practice for fun. I may drink a beer more than I need, have unprotected sex, or go for a quiet ride down a country lane helmetless.

Its my life see, my head, my belly, my liver and my cock. I want some choice in how I use them.

[Karl08]

Twas once upon a time that seat belts were not compulsory....I wonder how many people those have saved?

Or should that have been left optional?

Am I equating hi-vis vests to seat belts? No.

Am I wanting to drive a volvo instead of ride the Bandit? No.

Should I consider options that lessen the chance of my daughters seeing me buried? Yes.

Good on anyone who advocates for safety.

[GTRMAN]

Thats what safety nazis do. They use compulsion to make other people safer. Right now, we are looking at a safety nazi wanting to make motorcycling safer by forcing safety on everyone. It will work too. It will make motorcycling a little safer.

But eventually, we embolden the next nazi. Who wont be trying to make motorcycling safer. He will want to make transport safer.

So he will want me in a volvo, not on a suzuki.

And yes, for what its worth, I often do things that are not best health and safety practice for fun. I may drink a beer more than I need, have unprotected sex, or go for a quiet ride down a country lane helmetless.

Its my life see, my head, my belly, my liver and my cock. I want some choice in how I use them.

Yes it is your choice. But if one of your children were to take up riding, would you want them to be the safest they could be when on the road? If you were to come off your bike on that quiet country lane and grind half your face off would you expect to have the resultant medical care funded by the tax payer?

You see personal choice is fantastic and a God given right, but it goes hand in hand with personal responsibility. So if you exercise your choice, why should that be at the expense of someone else?

I don't think there is any argument that wearing a helmet lessons the chances of head injury, the same for bike specific clothing like armoured jackets,gloves, pants and boots etc. People sometimes choose not to wear the right gear.... 'no worries she'll be right' And sometimes the unthinkable happens... and she's not right.

Again, it's your choice, but don't bag someone who spends most of their time trying to train people to be safe, maybe they know a thing or two.

[davereid]

Yes it is your choice. But if one of your children were to take up riding, would you want them to be the safest they could be when on the road? If you were to come off your bike on that quiet country lane and grind half your face off would you expect to have the resultant medical care funded by the tax payer?

You see personal choice is fantastic and a God given right, but it goes hand in hand with personal responsibility. So if you exercise your choice, why should that be at the expense of someone else?

I don't think there is any argument that wearing a helmet lessons the chances of head injury, the same for bike specific clothing like armoured jackets,gloves, pants and boots etc. People sometimes choose not to wear the right gear.... 'no worries she'll be right' And sometimes the unthinkable happens... and she's not right.

Again, it's your choice, but don't bag someone who spends most of their time trying to train people to be safe, maybe they know a thing or two.

Andrew doesn't want it to be my choice. He wants everything to be compulsory. Im not bagging the man by the way, simply his attitude that we require compulsion.

Wearing a helmet is a great safety aid. Depending on what you read, it increases my chance of surviving a crash by two, possibly two and a half times. (Not thats its a binary. Survival doesn't mean not brain injured, it just means alive.)

But if Andrew has the "right" to make me wear safety gear for a two and a half time improvement in survival rates, he will be way out of his league when the next safety nazi wants to ban motorcycles for a 22 times improvement.

Cos thats what safety nazis do. They ban the most dangerous thing. And once its banned its not the most dangerous thing anymore. Something else is. So they try to ban that too.

[GTRMAN]

Andrew doesn't want it to be my choice. He wants everything to be compulsory. Im not bagging the man by the way, simply his attitude that we require compulsion.

Wearing a helmet is a great safety aid. Depending on what you read, it increases my chance of surviving a crash by two, possibly two and a half times. (Not thats its a binary. Survival doesn't mean not brain injured, it just means alive.)

But if Andrew has the "right" to make me wear safety gear for a two and a half time improvement in survival rates, he will be way out of his league when the next safety nazi wants to ban motorcycles for a 22 times improvement.

Cos thats what safety nazis do. They ban the most dangerous thing. And once its banned its not the most dangerous thing anymore. Something else is. So they try to ban that too.

Sorry I must have missed the part that pronounced him emperor. Seems like you are reading a lot into a single line quote on an article.

So why, in your opinion, was the wearing of a helmet made compulsory?

[Tricia1000]

Well said. and as I was quoted in the same newspaper article, that Andrew spoke in, I started teaching people how to be safer motorcyclists, because I have seen, (during my other life, as a nurse in the Operating Theatre) all too often, the injuries that occur, when proper gear isn't worn, and riders are somewhat unskilled in motorcycle best practice (for want of a better word)

Yes, it is your own choice, but if you have just slid down the road on your arse for 100 metres, not only will you end up looking forward to 10-15 years worth of very painful skin grafts, (if your only injury is severe road rash) but you will probably require a whole heap of blood, that scores of people have donated, so that we (medical staff) get a better chance to save your life.... And whilst you are recovering ACC is paying out huge amounts of money to keep you fed, housed, cared for, medical bills etc., as well as impact on your family, and all because you thought it was safe to ride in an irresponsible manner, with irresponsible values.

The worst injury that I have ever seen, was on a guy about 19 or 20. He was just wearing normal clothes on his bike, and so was his pillion. They had both been drinking. The rider thought it was safe to overtake the car that he was following....

He misjudged the gap between the car he wanted to overtake, and the on coming vehicle...
as his handle bars connected with the back of the vehicle in front, he was propelled over the handlebars, and completely DEGLOVED his entire groin and scrotal area on the handlebars!!!

He was left without any skin, from just under his belly button, to the top of his thighs.
His penis was stripped of 70% of it's skin, his scrotal sac was so badly mangled, it needed to be removed (what was left of it). When we had done all we could for him, for that day, he had just two testes dangling at the bottom of his vas....
He became a frequent flyer in theatre, for 6 monthly skin grafts, that went on for another 5 years, until I left that hospital.. (so, obviously he was unable to work, huge impact on close family)
He would never be a father.....
His pillion was killed......

The rider would have escaped from serious injury, if he had been wearing motorcycle gear...

Finally, although you (davereid) may think that it is your business alone, whether you ride with or without gear, or ride with or without training or safety in mind, then it is a reasonably selfish view. Someone somewhere, (your Mother, Father, Sister, Brother, SO, other relatives and friends love you. You have a responsibility, to them, to come home in the same condition that you went out in..
Motorcycling IS DANGEROUS in the wrong hands, or even in the right hands, but the wrong frame of mind.. Once you respect the motorcycle for it's risks, then riding it is an exciting and much anticipated event..
*Steps down from soap box, and ducks for cover, in anticipation of the expected canned worms *

Tricia1000
RoADA (Dip)
Consultant to NZTA

Yes it is your choice. But if one of your children were to take up riding, would you want them to be the safest they could be when on the road? If you were to come off your bike on that quiet country lane and grind half your face off would you expect to have the resultant medical care funded by the tax payer?

You see personal choice is fantastic and a God given right, but it goes hand in hand with personal responsibility. So if you exercise your choice, why should that be at the expense of someone else?

I don't think there is any argument that wearing a helmet lessons the chances of head injury, the same for bike specific clothing like armoured jackets,gloves, pants and boots etc. People sometimes choose not to wear the right gear.... 'no worries she'll be right' And sometimes the unthinkable happens... and she's not right.

Again, it's your choice, but don't bag someone who spends most of their time trying to train people to be safe, maybe they know a thing or two.

[davereid]

Sorry I must have missed the part that pronounced him emperor. Seems like you are reading a lot into a single line quote on an article. So why, in your opinion, was the wearing of a helmet made compulsory?

I am most certainly not bagging the man, I get the feeling he has a genuine and well focused belief that compulsory safety gear will help motorcycling survive.

Sadly I see it as the beginning of the end.

Americans will still be fighting helmet laws and riding, while we will have had helmets, compulsory lights on, compulsory hi viz, compulsory ABS, compulsory rider training etc etc.

Eventually we will find that no amount of safety gear makes a motorcycle as safe as a car.

And if we haven't established that we have the right to do something that is a bit unsafe, just for pleasure, then we won't have a leg to stand on when we loose our right to ride.

Thats the issue here. Motorcycling will never be safe. We need to stay whoa, hands off my pleasures.

You asked the question would I want my kids to be safe. Of course.

But thats the thing here.

For everyone who describes a motorcyclists without as ATGATT as a darwin candidate, there are 20 car drivers describing motorcylists with ATGATT the same way.


Its a case of perspective. You think a motorcycle is "safe enough" to ride with all the gear. But its not. Its still 18 to 22 times more dangerous than a car.

To me, thats an acceptable risk. But it has to remain my decision what level of risk I am able to take, to enjoy my life.

[GTRMAN]

I am most certainly not bagging the man, I get the feeling he has a genuine and well focused belief that compulsory safety gear will help motorcycling survive.

Sadly I see it as the beginning of the end.

Americans will still be fighting helmet laws and riding, while we will have had helmets, compulsory lights on, compulsory hi viz, compulsory ABS, compulsory rider training etc etc.

Eventually we will find that no amount of safety gear makes a motorcycle as safe as a car.

And if we haven't established that we have the right to do something that is a bit unsafe, just for pleasure, then we won't have a leg to stand on when we loose our right to ride.

Thats the issue here. Motorcycling will never be safe. We need to stay whoa, hands off my pleasures.

You asked the question would I want my kids to be safe. Of course.

But thats the thing here.

For everyone who describes a motorcyclists without as ATGATT as a darwin candidate, there are 20 car drivers describing motorcylists with ATGATT the same way.


Its a case of perspective. You think a motorcycle is "safe enough" to ride with all the gear. But its not. Its still 18 to 22 times more dangerous than a car.

To me, thats an acceptable risk. But it has to remain my decision what level of risk I am able to take, to enjoy my life.

I think you'll find that safety gear WILL help save a life, or reduce the severity of an altercation. The point made in the article was that many do not wear it, because they are not legally obliged to.

So if I can quote you.. "For everyone who describes a motorcyclists without as ATGATT as a darwin candidate, there are 20 car drivers describing motorcylists with ATGATT the same way"

This would seem to be a fitting argument for people both wearing the correct gear and getting the right training.

[davereid]

I think you'll find that safety gear WILL help save a life, or reduce the severity of an altercation. The point made in the article was that many do not wear it, because they are not legally obliged to.

Playing devils advocate, I agree that safety gear WILL help save a life, or reduce the severity of an altercation.

But motorcycling is not necessary. Its mostly done for pleasure, and doesn't need to be part of any modern transport solution.

It would be so much safer and effective just to ban motorcycles.

We would get an overnight 18 - 22x instant improvement in safety outcomes, over the alternative - a fully trained, helmeted and ATGATTED motorcyclists.

No more selfish people like me that think that it is my business alone, to choose an inherently unsafe vehicle when there are perfectly good cars available.

Someone somewhere, (your Mother, Father, Sister, Brother, SO, other relatives and friends loves me... I have a responsibility, to them, to come home in the same condition that you went out in.... and riding a motorcycle is an unnecessary risk, that I simply don't need to take.

Motorcycling IS DANGEROUS in the wrong hands, or even in the right hands.... and a total ban is the best outcome.


Every reason we have to use compulsion to make people wear safety gear, is exactly the same justification that will be used to ban motorcycles.

[Nasty]

I think you'll find that safety gear WILL help save a life, or reduce the severity of an altercation. The point made in the article was that many do not wear it, because they are not legally obliged to.

So if I can quote you.. "For everyone who describes a motorcyclists without as ATGATT as a darwin candidate, there are 20 car drivers describing motorcylists with ATGATT the same way"

This would seem to be a fitting argument for people both wearing the correct gear and getting the right training.

Please let me correct you.

Safety gear contributes to saving lives. IT WILL NOT SAVE LIVES.

My (late) partner wore awesome safety gear and died. Does that mean that he should have lived?

It does contributes to the reduction of the injuries and severity or injuries sustained should the rider have an accident. But the reality is that if you end up breaking 16 ribs, puncturing a lung, rupturing your spleen, unless you are really close to a tertiary hospital little can be done to save you.

[GTRMAN]

Please let me correct you.

Safety gear contributes to saving lives. IT WILL NOT SAVE LIVES.

My (late) partner wore awesome safety gear and died. Does that mean that he should have lived?

It does contributes to the reduction of the injuries and severity or injuries sustained should the rider have an accident. But the reality is that if you end up breaking 16 ribs, puncturing a lung, rupturing your spleen, unless you are really close to a tertiary hospital little can be done to save you.

First of all, I am sorry for your loss, nothing can replace a loved one gone before their time. However I did say that safety gear will help, but only help.

[ELectronicFlesh]

I've done some research and here is a comparative list of services in Wellington which provide a tuition course from no experience all the way to passing the BHS test-including bike and partial gear hire. Here is a list with their comprehensive course pricing:

$335 Streetwisenz
$390 Roadsafe

Edit:
This list was comprehensive of google's results for Wellington BHS tests, I've removed many which were on here due to them actually being based in Auckland. We need more BHS test providers in Welly.

[nzspokes]

I agree that gear wont save lives but helps prevent injuries becoming more life threatening than they already are. My partners crash in which she flew/slide 18m at 80 kph resulted 4 pelvic fractures, two broken wrists, cracked L5, bruised spleen. And on top of that she only had one cut from the foot peg of the bike. Yes most of her fractures were compound but there was no other skin injury. At the crash scene if she had significant skin trauma I very much doubt she would have lived. As a case in point her back protector heavily damaged. The crack to her L5 was considered insignificant and needed no treatment. I doubt that would be the case had she not had it on.

I now don't ride anywhere without a back protector.

But in saying that I don't believe the gear should be compulsory. Education would be better, compulsion will make people buy cheap shit gear.

[Erelyes]

But in saying that I don't believe the gear should be compulsory. Education would be better, compulsion will make people buy cheap shit gear.

Perhaps, but I think that saying "cheap shit gear" isn't fair.

A cheap pair of leather gloves will still do a ton better than bare hands. Spending 5x as much will give only a moderate improvement compared to that. So what if people buy cheap gear? The only people buying the cheap gear are those who would otherwise be wearing nothing, and still get a large increase in protection. Low hanging fruit.

Doesn't affect those who have already spent or would spend 3x (or more) as much for a moderate increase over that. At least not directly.