Why don't folks wear gloves when they're riding?

[Her_C4]

Heres the rub. Yep it grates at me seeing people in shorts and tee shirts.
But much as I hate it I think we would all hate it more if it was legislated that we all wear full gear full face lids etc

Agree entirely.

It grates me as well, from a number of different perspectives, but mostly from a personal one. The ONE time I took a bike out for a 'wee' ride around the bays (last Easter), I had on a pair of jeans, helmet, gloves, jacket and boots (well lets face I HAVE to take my boots or I can't reach the ground!!! ) ....... and I am still paying for it now - painfully.

Personal responsibility is where it is at for me - lets NOT legislate away all our personal choice.

[RearWheel]

Minimal protective gear is just plain dumb ie just a brain bucket , but lets face it , it not a matter of if you come off but when , so my thinking is that the idiots will come off sooner rather than later and scuff themselfs up real bad and hopefully decide this 2 wheeled caper is not for them as its to dang dangerous and go back to driving their cages...... but then the next prob is that you now have another idiot in a cage to watch out 4 which in turn make my life as a two wheeler more dangerous which prob means i should wear even more protective gear. I just cant understand why some pple put so little value on their own bodies..... and if they dont value them selfs do you really think they give a shit about anyone else....... Get with the program people and use just a wee bit of common sence , you spend all you hard earned $$$ for the flash bike and then fuck all on looking after yourself,...... yep keep an eye out for one eyed one legged scuffed up cage drivers cos ya know right away their idiots

[Bikernereid]

Each to their own and legislation wouldn't help I don't think as you will always have muppets who will ignore it. At the end of the day if they want to get battered, bruised lose skin then so be it!! I have seen a family friend in hospital withn the worst gravelled arse ever and he was not happy about it believe me!! Not sure if it was the pain or indignity of having to be on all fours all the time or both but he learnt a very valuable lesson about clothing and gravel not mixing!!

Heres the rub. Yep it grates at me seeing people in shorts and tee shirts.
But much as I hate it I think we would all hate it more if it was legislated that we all wear full gear full face lids etc

[vifferman]

As my son says frequently to me if I complain: "Waah."
(He's right, y'know. )

If I choose to not wear gloves, and crash, and wreck my hands, then that's my business, and something I'll have to live with.

If you're going to be really pragmatic about this, then why not legislate that anyone who ventures on the road should be attired in safety equipment? That includes cyclists, pedestrians, skateboarders, etc.

I saw an elderly woman out for a 'jog' this morning. She took a tumble on a very gently sloping footpath. If only she'd been earing a helmet, gloves, and leathers, she wouldn't have suffered any injuries from her faceplant.
And that's not an isolated case!
A couple of months ago, my (elderly) mother tripped and injured herself too!

A few years ago, my cousin died when he tripped over disembarking from his yacht and hit his head on the jetty. Very sad, as he was only in his 20s.

Waah.

FFS - life is a terminal illness. Sooner or later, you're going to croak. Along the way, there are risks and you will get hurt. In the final analysis, it's up to YOU what risks you're prepared to take.

Having said that, I think it's Fine'n'Dandy that there are some rules to protect dumbarses from themselves (and others from the dumbarses). Like compulsory helmets for cyclists and motorcyclists are A Good Thing, as are lifejackets for boaties. I've visited the brain injury ward at Waikato Hoss Spittle, and it was very scary.

But where do you draw the line? :spudwhat:

Do you really want every facet of your life dictated by some grey-suited, grey-faced bureaucrat in some dingy office somewhere?

Let's say it was compulsory to wear all the gear, all the time. This necessitates that there be legislation and piles of paper somewhere mandating what constitutes gear of a "satisfactory standard". So, I could be popping down to the dairy to get some milk (low fat, of course) for my low-fat, high-sawdust cereal, so I'm waering gloves, but they're just summer gloves, because I can't find my kevlar'n'carbonfibre-armoured race gloves, with built-in titanium joint protectors. Mr Plod has got bored with trying to meet his quota on people exceeding the new urban speedlimit of 35km/h by more than 0.5 km/h, so he's hanging out behind the recycling bins at the corner shops, busting any cyclists, motorcyclists and skateboarders not wearing full leathers, and any joggers not wearing a helmet, gloves and knee/elbow pads.
I get 50 points and $250 fine for not wearing officially-sanctioned NZS-certified safety equipment.

[MSTRS:Me]

If I choose to not wear gloves, and crash, and wreck my hands, then that's my business,

Yes it is your business, but should the rest of us have to subsidise your ACC costs?

[scumdog]

I hope all those who feel full-faced helmets, armoured gloves and leathers with back protectors and armour in all the appropriate places should be mandatory are also riding bikes with Very Bright Colours and fitted with ABS too....

Where do you stop with the 'safety' thing?

Balance and personal responsibility people.

And where Waxxa got the info "90% of bike accidents are caused by non-bikers" from I'd like to know.

[Pwalo]

You guys worry far too much. Presumably you're all adults and can make your own decisions - just don't complain to me if you hurt yourselves.

I like to wear gloves, full face, armoured jacket, boots because I don't like bugs hitting me in the face, sunburnt or windburnt body parts, and because I'm attached to my skin.

Now where's my medication.

[mowgli]

Minimal protective gear is just plain dumb ie just a brain bucket , but lets face it , it not a matter of if you come off but when

I'm not planning to come off at all. I still wear full protective gear.

[RearWheel]

I'm not planning to come off at all. I still wear full protective gear.

Ha Ha Yep ur right we never PLAN to come off our bikes that would be a really dumb plan ..... best we can do is plan to survive it best we can should we come off...... bit like insurance really would rather not use it but glad ur covered if the worst happens.

[scumdog]

Ha Ha Yep ur right we never PLAN to come off our bikes that would be a really dumb plan ..... best we can do is plan to survive it best we can should we come off...... bit like insurance really would rather not use it but glad ur covered if the worst happens.

The difference is: You KNOW you're going to use the life insurance one day...

[vifferman]

Yes it is your business, but should the rest of us have to subsidise your ACC costs?

That's a good (and expected) point. So, you're saying if I choose to be cavalier about my safety, why should you have to be responsible for funding it? That it should be fair, and related to stuff like risk, personal responsibility, how much care I take to be 'safe', and stuff like that?

Well, seeing the ACC makes noises about "user pays", it would be nice if their levies were fair, and related to stuff like risk, personal responsibility, and stuff like that, wouldn't it?
But, alas - they're not.

We, as a group, are easy to target for fees, sort of a captive market. I dunno exactly how ACC work it out (couldn't find it in a cursory browsing of their site), but I suspect it goes summat like this (cue film clip, involving bureaucrat with one of those "Ch-ching" adding machines):
"Lessee.... our projected costs for those blasted motorcyclists falling off their bikes is 17 trillion shekel-dollars. Ch-ching!"
"Add in the number of off-road motorcycling accidents, and their costs. CH-ching!"
"Add in inflation index. Ch-ching!"
"My fees. Ch'ching!"
"Increased staff needed to cope with the extra work. Ch-ching!'
"That comes to 23 trillion shekel-dollars. Ch-ching!"
"Divide by the number of expected registered bikes on the road. Ch-ching!"
"Right-o. That's $220 per bike. Better round it up to $250, then add in some cents to make it look like it's accurate. Ch-ching!"

User pays?
Does it take into account the fact that some lucky individuals may own more than one bike, while they can only ride one at a time?
Does it take into account who/what caused the accident?
Does it deduct from the accident statistics non road-going motorcycles?

While I'm asking stupid questions, how about:
Are there levies on sportspeoples?
Do a proportion of our household rates go to cover ACC claims?
(Do they? I really don't know).

"Our homes are the most dangerous places of all: accidents at home killed over 300 people. 29,910 people were injured at home, with slips, trips and falls causing most injuries. Although men and women are injured in almost equal numbers, adult men are 70% more likely to be killed at home."

And:
"Over 1,100 people are killed in accidents each year, with more people killed in non-road accidents than on the roads."

It's a can of worms.
I guess we can't really expect the Gummint to look after us, with safety nets like ACC and a publicly-funded health system, and yet still have freedom to make decisions on our own, decide our own acceptable risk levels, be personally responsible, can we?

[MSTRS:Me]

Good answer, Vifferman, and one I was counting on being posted. It points out nicely all the ludicrous shortfalls of this ACC system we are stuck with. The system that is brilliant on paper, just like Heilen and Mikhail's policies, but is actually stifling in it's operation.

[flyen]

It seems to me it is all about attitude and exposure, alot of people that wear little protective gear either think it won't happen to me or have never seen the result of the high speed( or even low speed crash).
like I have been told a few time:
riding along minding your own buisness
then all of a sudden
earth, sky
earth, sky
earth, sky
earth -- ambulance.

tarseal gets a little softer when hot but not enough for me to ever go out in anything but full gear.

keep the rubber side down.

[MIZXR]

ACC would pay more payouts to damaged rugby players than on accidents caused by motorcyles at least those not involving cars, but of course we lot are seen as likely to badly injure ourselves.

we have no big organisation to protect our interests

and there is a reason we are known as temporary NZ ers

FFS you talk about making laws but then we've all got to pay for them to enforce new rules when they cant manage the ones they have!

and as for the arguement about open face and full face helmets thet BOTH have dangerous properties. Personal choice is full face for me but

[Swoop]

same deal with open-face helmets...does anyone else think these should be banned too!! face vs tarseal....ouch!!

An excellent idea. But a much better one would be to ban all those dreadful noisy "sportbike" motorcycles that those people race around on.
The sooner those dangerous and antisocial toys are banned the better for everyone, including the riders, Why should I have to pay taxes and ACC to patch them up when they injure themselves?

It is intersting to note the amount of sprotbike riders who wear open-face helmets... A very rare breed indeed.

1/. All the gear = full cover (and I mean full, none of this you pay the first $50 or whatever)
2/. No gloves = rider pays a third, ACC covers the rest
3/. No jacket - pants - boots = as above
4/. No gear (barring helmet) = rider pays the lot
You get the idea?

Get's my vote.

(I'm sure that Jim2 will be along shortly, but in his absence...)

*ahem*

Also burn them! Also!

Good greif. Not another one trying to get his post-count up...