Newbies and UoA riders - this is aimed at you!!

[madbikeboy]

I wish I was old and knew it all.

Then I could go and make blanket assumptions about young people.

My halo of invincibility? That's been gone since childhood. I'm no cotton-wool baby.

Hell I've only got 20% mobility in my left arm, due to a bike crash.

Of course, I should have been wearing full gear right?

Oh wait, I was wearing full gear.

Don't worry, avoiding the flaws in your logic will only get you so far. Luckily, relying on baseless stereotypes will get you the rest of the way.

And Rob is right - generally I see a better level of safety gear from the SMC than I see from non-SMC riders.

Pull your head in.

Well, I wonder what damage would have occured had you not been wearing gear?

Next time you buy some casual pants to go riding with, make sure they come with built in panty shields. I'll continue merrily on my way, flawed logic intact, with some experience along with some humility, good gear, learnings from old guys I know, and perhaps even some luck.

[madbikeboy]

"Titanium toe sliders" and "ride defensively" are mutually incompatible statements

Again, a viewpoint. If you were sliding down the road, foot trapped between bike and road after getting hit - you might reconsider that position.

[madbikeboy]

The problem with arguing with idiots is that anyone observing is going to have great difficulty telling us apart.

[Griffin]

The problem with arguing with idiots is that anyone observing is going to have great difficulty telling us apart.

Ahhh... hence my signature.

I think your original statement MBB is a good one, with the exception of the "you have no right" bit. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view... people do have the right to put on a third hand scratched helmet, board shorts and a mesh singlet for the added 'cool' factor and ride their bike at 105kph down the motorway if they so wish.

While to you and me... and many of the more sensible amongst us, this may seem incomprehensible, the sad fact is that they have a bike and a helmet... and a desire to ride. You and I just have to accept that our ACC levys and other associated overinflated costs are what they are because this is the case.

[Marmoot]

...where I have to pay more to register the scoot than a cager does because of ACC levies...

The increase of ACC levies and bike injuries may well be irrelevant, despite what the ACC is saying.
The last C in ACC stands for Corporation, and you know what a corporation's goal is.

[madbikeboy]

Ahhh... hence my signature.

I think your original statement MBB is a good one, with the exception of the "you have no right" bit. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view... people do have the right to put on a third hand scratched helmet, board shorts and a mesh singlet for the added 'cool' factor and ride their bike at 105kph down the motorway if they so wish.

While to you and me... and many of the more sensible amongst us, this may seem incomprehensible, the sad fact is that they have a bike and a helmet... and a desire to ride. You and I just have to accept that our ACC levys and other associated overinflated costs are what they are because this is the case.

+1. 10 char minimum...

[chubby]

Excuse the interruption but I find the argument going on here rather pathetic and picky.

Getting back to the original point of the thread. MBB comes across bike verse car accident where the bike rider has come off worse for wear. Getting involved in assistance with the fallen rider (I hope he has a speedy recovery) MBB reflects and makes what i consider to be a very relevant and perinent comment. MBB believes that the injuries sustained would have been lessened had they worn reasonable levels of protective gear.

Each day I drive Symonds Street, and I watch 100's of people cross the road without looking, and inevitably, every car either pulls out without looking, or does the u-turn without giving a second thought. There is a certain inevitability at play here. Ride carefully, ride protected with the right gear. If you can't afford the gear, take the bus instead.

Forget splitting hairs, comments on gramma, legal rights, whether white or black helmets are safer or even if they make the grade on snell rather than sharp. Riding a bike is dangerous and the consequences of accidents can be great. We owe it to ourselves, our families, friends and to all that witness and assist to be as safe as possible in how we ride, how safe the machine that we ride is and what we wear.

Having accepted that, under a seperate heading we can argue what constitutes reasonable leveles of protective gear, reasonable standards of maintenance and reasonable riding skills.

[PirateJafa]

Having accepted that, under a seperate heading we can argue what constitutes reasonable leveles of protective gear, reasonable standards of maintenance and reasonable riding skills.

Not really, this is as good a place as any. I'll happily call bullshit wherever I see it.

The thread about Symonds St. is going on in the correct place for it.

That said, this thread is pretty pointless in and of itself. As another user has said to me "It's pointless arguing, he cannot maintain a reasoned debate, picks only the points out that he doesn't find too inconvenient, and is too arrogant to ever see anyone else's point of view."

But that's pretty much par for the course for the internet. :slap:

[Griffin]

That said, this thread is pretty pointless in and of itself.

To be fair... there are many more 'pointless' threads on KB and a multitude of other forums that have as much right to be there as this one does. If you view it as pointless then why are you spending so much energy on arguing within it.

If I read a thread and think to myself 'how pointless was that' I tend to hit the back button and look for a thread that I do get something out of.

MBB original comment (though not unique) was a valid one, with the exception of claiming that you have no right to ride a bike without the appropriate gear. It is a fair opinion to hold, and a fair opinion to state. If you disagree, thats fine - but to claim the thread as pointless when you yourself have been so much a part of it is somewhat lame.

Truth is - we should wear decent gear when riding a motorbike, just like we should wear the appropriate gear for other dangerous activities. Unfortunately, many dont - and then they... and others affected by their demise / injury - suffer the consequences.

[PirateJafa]

....

Truth is - we should wear decent gear when riding a motorbike, just like we should wear the appropriate gear for other dangerous activities. Unfortunately, many dont - and then they... and others affected by their demise / injury - suffer the consequences.

I worded that poorly.

Rather, the thread is pointless as this is a subject that has been covered god only knows how many times on KB before.

Yes, we probably should wear decent gear. But we should not be forced to do it just because we might get hurt. Risk is part of riding, and living - we can minimise it, but not eliminate it.

[madbikeboy]

Not really, this is as good a place as any. I'll happily call bullshit wherever I see it.

The thread about Symonds St. is going on in the correct place for it.

That said, this thread is pretty pointless in and of itself. As another user has said to me "It's pointless arguing, he cannot maintain a reasoned debate, picks only the points out that he doesn't find too inconvenient, and is too arrogant to ever see anyone else's point of view."

But that's pretty much par for the course for the internet. :slap:

"Reasoned debate?" Sure thing, kiddo, you got the wallet for the beers, I'll sit and discuss for hours about why, and I'm lucid enough to maintain as long as you're willing to.

Picking the points that I find convenient = Limiting the discussion to the point. You are right about one thing though, the thread is pointless if you're missing it. I'm sure with complexity theory, the end of the world is somehow related to the events that happened today, why limit the conversation to just talking about my point and yours. Let's go nuts and talk about it all.

Arrogant? Not even close.

I was at university for seven years, I can debate, however the years since uni have taught me when the time is well spent doing so.

[chubby]

I find that disappointing. The main message in this thread is that we should all be wearing reasonable protective clothing and I support every effort in getting that point across. However, continuous argueing on what constitutes reasonable protective gear within the same thread only serves to diminish the main point. I see a valid point being lost.

If you don't believe riders should take any steps to protect themselves then argue away. If you do then start a thread on what reasonable protective clothing should be.

[madbikeboy]

To be fair... there are many more 'pointless' threads on KB and a multitude of other forums that have as much right to be there as this one does. If you view it as pointless then why are you spending so much energy on arguing within it.

If I read a thread and think to myself 'how pointless was that' I tend to hit the back button and look for a thread that I do get something out of.

MBB original comment (though not unique) was a valid one, with the exception of claiming that you have no right to ride a bike without the appropriate gear. It is a fair opinion to hold, and a fair opinion to state. If you disagree, thats fine - but to claim the thread as pointless when you yourself have been so much a part of it is somewhat lame.

Truth is - we should wear decent gear when riding a motorbike, just like we should wear the appropriate gear for other dangerous activities. Unfortunately, many dont - and then they... and others affected by their demise / injury - suffer the consequences.

Umm, nicely said. I'm out of bling, will post some in 24 hours.

[madbikeboy]

Excuse the interruption but I find the argument going on here rather pathetic and picky.

Getting back to the original point of the thread. MBB comes across bike verse car accident where the bike rider has come off worse for wear. Getting involved in assistance with the fallen rider (I hope he has a speedy recovery) MBB reflects and makes what i consider to be a very relevant and perinent comment. MBB believes that the injuries sustained would have been lessened had they worn reasonable levels of protective gear.



Forget splitting hairs, comments on gramma, legal rights, whether white or black helmets are safer or even if they make the grade on snell rather than sharp. Riding a bike is dangerous and the consequences of accidents can be great. We owe it to ourselves, our families, friends and to all that witness and assist to be as safe as possible in how we ride, how safe the machine that we ride is and what we wear.

Having accepted that, under a seperate heading we can argue what constitutes reasonable leveles of protective gear, reasonable standards of maintenance and reasonable riding skills.

Again, good points Chubby. I respect your view on this, you're always the sensible one. Cheers.

[chubby]

I apologise my slow typing leaves me behind others.

Rather, the thread is pointless as this is a subject that has been covered god only knows how many times on KB before.

I disagee. Safety is something we should all be concerned about. We have a rider who, by all accounts, would be better off if they had paid head to this sort of discussion. the message hasn't got through. We have new riders coming along every day. They need to hear it too.

Yes, we probably should wear decent gear. But we should not be forced to do it just because we might get hurt. Risk is part of riding, and living - we can minimise it, but not eliminate it.

one of the risks of riding is that we will fall or be hit. we should minimse our own risk of damage. How do we do that? Wear reasonable protective gear. Right we agree... now lets move on and discuss what is reasonable and what is over the top or useless (I expect there are many false perceptions here).