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

[madbikeboy]

I think every rider is entitled to make their own decision as to what level of gear they need to wear.

However, things that make me cringe are riders with:
an open face helmet (exposed jaw)
shorts (bare legs)
t-shirt (bare arms)
sneakers or worse (jandals - *shudder*)
bare hands (yikes)

My main helmet is a flip face Nolon N103 in plain white - decent quality helmet with high visibility. I always wear gloves, boots, leather jacket and currently Draggin' Jeans (I will buy some kind of armoured pants for next winter). I don't consider what I wear to be overkill - in fact I think I have got myself the bare minimum (I have no hard armour in legs or back).

I agree with the original post - the guys not wearing the minimum gear should wake up and gear up! Those that ignore the advice and get themselves some painful road rash - well you've been told, you made your decision, you have to live with it.

Good post, the one thing that I would respectfully add is that a back protector, possibly the cheapest safety device you can buy (under $100) is something that I wouldn't ride without. Broken backs are a really big deal, my partner broke hers in four places, she still does daily exercises for the rehab (hers was a skiing accident).

[R-Soul]

Your own safety. By all means. But you have no right to impose your own opinions (based on what you feel is appropriate for you ) on others.

I am probably more concerned about my own safety than any of you of yours. I don't like getting hurt. And I take such steps as I deem appropriate to keep me safe.

I do not demand that anyone else should comply with the standards I set myself. Let alone demand that those standards should be legislatively enforced.

Jeez bomma, you are not really looking for a good read are you You are just lloking for an argument. The man saw an accident, and was shook up from it. We all know that talking about it and seeing it are two very different things. And when it happens, it happens fast, and it makes you doubt your own abilty to handle the same situation. That is human nature. Mad biker is obviously a nice guy who does care about the health of others, and his points on "learning vicariously" are well made.

Too many kids - and especially Uni students who dont have dosh for the protective gear (or at least have higher priorities like girls and booze) - are too gung ho about it. Mad biker is trying to explain to these guys why it should be prioritised RIGHT UP THERE. He uis not setting or imposing standards for safety, he is telling them that when the cage appears over your screen as big as a death sentence, then the chicks and booze mean NOTHING.

Youth makes you feel indestructible. Everyone knows that. Youths are not indestructible. Everyone knows that too - except the youths. Thats great if you set your own standards. If you don't give a rats ass about other's safety - that is great too. But then dont get in the way of trying to get the message across to others with your obnoxious ranting. FFS get a life...

[motorbyclist]

holy crap, 40 posts per page, and i've only just finished page one of 4

i'm a quarter way in and already seen the thread take the normal course, had frustration at only being able to rep so often for logical arguments, given up and used red rep instead, and as per expected we're already arguing over how pointless the thread is

[motorbyclist]

right, is it my turn now?

When's the next ride?

in about 9 hours - BP autobahn at 930 is your best bet


right, now watch carefully kids...

Yeah, I wear ATGATT, and expensive stuff at that, and I think legislation should be put in place to ensure all riders are as well dressed as I am, so that they don't get as hurt, thus saving injury/costs

Yeah, I've got a GSXR1000,

well lets put a different spin on your argument here:

Yeah, I ride a 400cc 53HP bike, and it's a fucking sweet one at that, and I think legislation should be put in place to ensure all riders are as underpowered as I am, so that they don't get as hurt, thus saving injury/costs

tell me exactly how our two arguments differ (qualitatively)


the ONLY difference in our arguments, is one can actually legislate (draw a line) as to a power output, as opposed to non standardized safety standards, AND power output has little to do with being rear ended/cut off/run over

BUT what they have in common is that:

BOTH arguments fall prey to the fact that a safety standard is entirely subjective

ie, the govt could decide that 130cc or 20HP is the maximum allowable "safe" power output for a motorcycle. they drew a line, and it sucks.
ie, they could decide that you must have full gear to XYZ certification, and impose that all importers prove their gear meets this certification, and get all officers to check all riders are wearing such certified gear.... and you can see where this unenforcable rule becomes an issue (and fucking expensive for the new rider if they have to spend $3000+ on approved gear)
ie, we may be enforced to wear bubblewrap suits, have big bouncy bars and rollcages (and saftey belts) around our bikes etc etc

BOTH arguments need not account for dangerous riding (laws already cover that)

BOTH arguments have an issue of legislators having to ask "how safe is safe"?

ie, a motorcycle is not safe. if we were concerned about 100% safety, we would ban them - and there are people out there who would, or at the very least waive ACC cover


so, when (if) you think about it, legislating that we must all adhere to a safety standard is ONLY good if the safety standard is our own minimum

so, assuming the beurocrats down in wellington fit my own personal stereotype of boring accountants/lawyers, the new legal minimum safety standard will be that of a car, with 9 airbags and 5 point harnesses, remotely governed to the applicable speed limit.

it may not happen overnight, but give it 20 years and see what happens.... i hear honda has finally given up manufacturing two strokes this year due to ever tightening emissions regulations...

which seems to be what MMB doesn't understand...

and even better, this wont be starting the wedge, it'll be kicking it further in. the wedge started with the helmets - which is why in the USA they have the freedom to choose and make a big fuss when they lose it

(licences, speed limits, WOFs, etc etc keep OTHER people safe)



SO lets try another viable solution to this issue: private health insurance, which would make riding like a fuckwit so expensive many of us would have to quit - even the sensible commuters among us

it works for the states dunnit? (sarcasm)

or would people just ride uninsured and become a burden on society anyway?


what's that? still getting penalized for the stupidity of others?



life isn't fair.



get used to it.


if we want the freedom to choose to ride, we must also have the freedom to choose how we ride

[madbikeboy]

How dare you fucking misquote me to bang on about your own misguided bullshit.

AND YOU RED BLING ME.

You are a fool, a cunt, and you haven't read what I wrote, nor the intent.

Go back to your village, your locals are missing their idiot. Failing that, stick your head up your ass. Oh, too late, it already is.

[FROSTY:Me]

Fundamentally flawed huh? I think the reasoning that you're applying is due to living most of your formative years under the nanny state that is Helen. Keep it on point - riding without the correct gear is stupid. End of sentence.

Dude --You think thats bad you shoulda seen what I saw on the gold coast. Young nubile women with just scanty bikinis a slight wind chill and--ohh er what was I saying --ohh yea um--gold coast not much protective gear worn thazz right.

[RDJ]

and today in minimally related news, there was an article about lots of UK tourists going to be fined large numbers of euros for driving their cages in France without having a reflective vest handy...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ng-France.html

it's a strange slippery slope....

(just trying to redirect the thread to a bit more sweetness and light or failing that, not quite so personal attacks...)

[FROSTY:Me]

An idea -tossed out there to see what response.
On the way to the bank an experienced rider rides with dress pants and work boots on.
As a result finds themselves riding exceptionally carefully.
So in this case what is more dangerous the way they dress/ ride or perhaps a guy in full leathers with a feeling of invincibility?

Just a thought there

Mind you Im also an advocvate of replacing all air bags with spring loaded stilletto knives --imagine how carefully cagers would drive

[RDJ]

with that footwear

[Mully]

Mind you Im also an advocvate of replacing all air bags with spring loaded stilletto knives --imagine how carefully cagers would drive

*makes mental note not to buy future cage from Frosty if its fitted with airbags*

[RDJ]

An idea -tossed out there to see what response.
On the way to the bank an experienced rider rides with dress pants and work boots on.
As a result finds themselves riding exceptionally carefully.
So in this case what is more dangerous the way they dress/ ride or perhaps a guy in full leathers with a feeling of invincibility?
Just a thought there

Agree with you. "Suiting Up" does encourage a feeling of protection... which may in turn encourage greater risk-taking. But on balance, since we can crash and burn even when we ride ultra-carefully thanks to cars / diesel / Acts of random Deities (or should that be random Acts of Deities), I'll still take the protection.

[twinkle]

I saw a guy going 40-50km down symonds street on a skateboard last wednesday
I suppose he just jumps off to stop...

[RDJ]

He could just reverse the flux capacitor...

[Kickaha]

which is why in the USA they have the freedom to choose and make a big fuss when they lose it

They don't have the freedom to choose, only 4 states dont have any helmet laws

In 20 States they are compulsory and the rest there are age restrictions

They're also bringing in other stuff for those that choose not to wear one

The new law mandates that any motorcyclist who chooses to ride without a helmet must show proof of health insurance when registering a motorcycle. A rider who complies can obtain a sticker that will enable him to legally ride without a helmet in the state. Should that riders health insurance lapse, his license would be suspended for 90 days, or until he can prove he's obtained suitable coverage.

http://usff.com/hldl/hlstatutes/mapolinks.html

[James Deuce]

Blah, blah, blah.

Seriously, what someone wears on their own motorcycle is no one else's business except their own. Apart from the helmet thing.

I reserve the right to be as stupid as the average student whenever I feel like it.

On the one hand motorcyclists bitch about the Nanny State, on the other the give it plenty of reason to behave like a Nana, on another hand they refuse to man up when they're in the wrong and have a bit of extra taxation to pay (and maybe even some "Push Play" time), and on yet another hand feel perfectly justified in vandalising someone else's property when they put themselves in a position to be at risk from another road user and then expect other road users to happily accept the unexpected.

Yes, that's four hands.

But that's because you're all two-faced hypocritical wankers who should be burnt.

Hmmpf.