Safety Gear..Discuss here
- Thread starter Guth_imp
- Start date
Pterodactyl_imp
Road warrior
Guth_imp said:
Wow that bike has great acceleration eh?
Cheers
DGShannon_imp
Been there
Randy B
Road warrior
the Ferret
Road warrior
I agree with you Randy, but I usually catch a bucket when I say so. I even catch a bucket when admitting I sometimes wear an open face or 3/4 helmet, or a modular even, or T shirt and jeans and gymmers, so I just don't participate when the subject comes up. I'm certainly not the smartest guy in the room, but I figured after nearly 50 years of street riding, I know what the dangers are, and have earned the right to face those dangers dressed as I see fit.
On the other hand I do think riders are much better off wearing gear. I am just respectful enough to acknowledge that adults have the right to make their own decisions. Smoke if you want, drink if you want, eat fatty foods if you want, lay around on the couch and veg if you want, realize that every choice has consequences, and if you can live with the consequences of those decisions, I'm good with it.
On the other hand I do think riders are much better off wearing gear. I am just respectful enough to acknowledge that adults have the right to make their own decisions. Smoke if you want, drink if you want, eat fatty foods if you want, lay around on the couch and veg if you want, realize that every choice has consequences, and if you can live with the consequences of those decisions, I'm good with it.
Pterodactyl_imp
Road warrior
^^^^. Yes, yes, yes. And you too Randy. If I want to wear ATGATT, and I mostly do, I'll wear it. If I don't, I won't. Just keep the doo-gooders off my back. Speaking of which, I have been tossing up wether to pack my leathers for May. In light off the fact I will be riding some challenging roads, and on the "wrong" side, I think I will. Bulky, though I could amaze the cabin crew by actually wearing them on the flight. Just tell them I'm a pessimist by nature might be a good line 
.
Cheers
. Cheers
emptysea
Road warrior
I guess I'll join in on the ATGATT comments. A) people should wear gear B) people can do whatever they want within the prevailing laws and C) Lack of gear generally does not contribute to the cause of the crash, but it can contribute to the severity. I'm not sure at all that a helmet would have reduced the rider's injuries in the video, but I am sure that we'd still be talking about the craziness of the crash even if he was. Oh..I guess I have a D, too: wasn't this thread about valve timing?
Houtman_imp
Road warrior
The problem here is that those people not taking care of themselves are asking society to pay for the consequences of their life style.The ferret_imp said:
My wife is a oncology nurse and sees hundreds of thousands of tax dollars spend on people making bad choices for years and than expect the medical world to come up with a miracle cure.
Pterodactyl_imp
Road warrior
The problem here is that those people not taking care of themselves are asking society to pay for the consequences of their life style.Houtman_imp said:
My wife is a oncology nurse and sees hundreds of thousands of tax dollars spend on people making bad choices for years and than expect the medical world to come up with a miracle cure.
Very true. We really shouldn't be taking risks, such as riding a motorcycle, when seat belts, airbags, side impact protection, etc is available in a motor car, or SUV. it costs society dollars.
Cheers.
Oh, that's a bit cute. This is not a simple equation. In Australia, at least, the cost of motorcycle (and other vehicle) accidents is largely met by the taxpayer. You can argue about whether that's the way it should be, but the fact remains that it is. And that gives government some right to have a say in what people should wear.
Motorcycles offer real benefits to society: less traffic congestion, reduced greenhouse gas output, convenience for individuals at a lower cost than motor cars, etc. So there's a benefit from people riding them. But there are also costs: people are likely to suffer greater injury when they come off. And they are more likely to be involved in accidents. In counties like Australia where health costs are largely borne by the taxpayer, it is not reasonable to hold that helmets are a matter of individual choice unless people who decline to wear them are prepared to meet the full cost of the consequences of that choice.
Motorcycles offer real benefits to society: less traffic congestion, reduced greenhouse gas output, convenience for individuals at a lower cost than motor cars, etc. So there's a benefit from people riding them. But there are also costs: people are likely to suffer greater injury when they come off. And they are more likely to be involved in accidents. In counties like Australia where health costs are largely borne by the taxpayer, it is not reasonable to hold that helmets are a matter of individual choice unless people who decline to wear them are prepared to meet the full cost of the consequences of that choice.
Houtman_imp
Road warrior
I think that there is a big difference between something being dangerous and things bad for your health.
The danger is over when you finish the thing what was dangerous : riding motor cycles, skiing, car racing etc etc . That list can be long but they have no long lasting health effects.
On the other hand life style decisions create long lasting health problems.
That list is shorter : smoking, drinking, drugs, over eating , lack of exercise .
I have been riding bikes for 45 years and I am fully aware of the DANGER but it is not bad for my health, just the opposite : it makes me happy !.
The danger is over when you finish the thing what was dangerous : riding motor cycles, skiing, car racing etc etc . That list can be long but they have no long lasting health effects.
On the other hand life style decisions create long lasting health problems.
That list is shorter : smoking, drinking, drugs, over eating , lack of exercise .
I have been riding bikes for 45 years and I am fully aware of the DANGER but it is not bad for my health, just the opposite : it makes me happy !.
the Ferret
Road warrior
In this thread we can talk about the risks, the benefits, whether it should be mandated, or worn voluntarily, it's impact on society etc
Now we must keep it civil. I know there are strong feeling on each side, but the safety issue keeps creeping into other non related threads and taking them off course. So...want to talk gear? do it here!
My opinion of course...
There is only ONE piece of safety gear you can buy which MIGHT save your life, and that is a motorcycle helmet. I say might because wearing a helmet is no guarantee you are going to survive a crash, but it sure ups your odds and is the one piece of equipment that raises your odds of survival by any percentage at all.
All other safety gear is not designed to save your life... jackets with armor, pants with armor, gloves with armor, or boots with armor will NOT under normal circumstances save your life. They will keep you from getting punctured in certain places, may stop a bone from being broken and may prevent you from getting road rash, but they were never intended to save your life. I wear this kind of gear when I feel like it, because I don't want those types on injuries either, but sometimes for certain reasons, I skip wearing some or all of this gear knowing full well what the outcome MIGHT be.
The argument that motorcyclists involved in crashes are a drain on society's medical system and a financial burden is at least partially true. However I suspect the majority of people lying in hospitals in vegetative states are NOT there because of motorcycle crashes. In motorcycle crashes the outcomes are usually one of two..(1) you recover and go home and (2) you die, usually at the scene or very soon afterwards. The exact same outcomes for people in car wrecks, plane wrecks, industrial accidents, home accidents, sports accidents, skiing, skydiving, or rock climbing accidents or disease. There have been many national cases of someone in a vegetative state with loved ones fighting to have their machines turned off, and I don't remember a single one of those cases being from a motorcycle wreck. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I would venture to bet there are as many people draining the medical system from diving head first into the shallow end of a swimming pool as there are from motorcycle accidents.
I believe everyone should wear a helmet. I think it would be nice if it were mandated. I think if they can force you to wear a seatbelt, they should be able to force you to wear a helmet. I wear a helmet 100% of the time. But this is still America. We have freedom of choice in so many things. I support freedom of choice in almost all instances. Freedom for all is important , the foundation that this country was built on. So until they mandate wearing helmets I have to support one's choice NOT to do so.
ATGATT ? if you want to, by all means do it. Want to ride nearly buck naked? That's your choice as well. Just remember every choice has a consequence, and if you can live (or die as the case may be) by the consequences of your choice, hey who are my to tell you any different?
Now we must keep it civil. I know there are strong feeling on each side, but the safety issue keeps creeping into other non related threads and taking them off course. So...want to talk gear? do it here!
My opinion of course...
There is only ONE piece of safety gear you can buy which MIGHT save your life, and that is a motorcycle helmet. I say might because wearing a helmet is no guarantee you are going to survive a crash, but it sure ups your odds and is the one piece of equipment that raises your odds of survival by any percentage at all.
All other safety gear is not designed to save your life... jackets with armor, pants with armor, gloves with armor, or boots with armor will NOT under normal circumstances save your life. They will keep you from getting punctured in certain places, may stop a bone from being broken and may prevent you from getting road rash, but they were never intended to save your life. I wear this kind of gear when I feel like it, because I don't want those types on injuries either, but sometimes for certain reasons, I skip wearing some or all of this gear knowing full well what the outcome MIGHT be.
The argument that motorcyclists involved in crashes are a drain on society's medical system and a financial burden is at least partially true. However I suspect the majority of people lying in hospitals in vegetative states are NOT there because of motorcycle crashes. In motorcycle crashes the outcomes are usually one of two..(1) you recover and go home and (2) you die, usually at the scene or very soon afterwards. The exact same outcomes for people in car wrecks, plane wrecks, industrial accidents, home accidents, sports accidents, skiing, skydiving, or rock climbing accidents or disease. There have been many national cases of someone in a vegetative state with loved ones fighting to have their machines turned off, and I don't remember a single one of those cases being from a motorcycle wreck. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I would venture to bet there are as many people draining the medical system from diving head first into the shallow end of a swimming pool as there are from motorcycle accidents.
I believe everyone should wear a helmet. I think it would be nice if it were mandated. I think if they can force you to wear a seatbelt, they should be able to force you to wear a helmet. I wear a helmet 100% of the time. But this is still America. We have freedom of choice in so many things. I support freedom of choice in almost all instances. Freedom for all is important , the foundation that this country was built on. So until they mandate wearing helmets I have to support one's choice NOT to do so.
ATGATT ? if you want to, by all means do it. Want to ride nearly buck naked? That's your choice as well. Just remember every choice has a consequence, and if you can live (or die as the case may be) by the consequences of your choice, hey who are my to tell you any different?
Randy B
Road warrior
Mickey we need to ad a "LIKE" button to this forum somehow. There have been many posts I have come across that I have wished that we had one. and this one qualifies.
Pterodactyl_imp
Road warrior
Yes, a good post Ferret. As I have said in another post, I use full leathers with inserts, armoured gloves, motorcycle specific boots and a good quality full face. Mostly. I have been known to ride the three minutes to my local beach with far less than that, or taken a day ride on a hot day with Kevlar jeans and a mesh jacket. I think I have a realistic, if somewhat optimistic, view of safety gear. Gear will help in a slide or minor impact. In the event of a major impact by a vehicle or part of the scenery one can only hope it may help. It probably won't. Others on this forum, I take it, prefer a lower level of "protection ". That's their choice.
The only dispute I would have with the content of your post is accident outcome (1). For example, being T-boned and surviving has left many, yes many, motorcyclists with the loss of a leg and other ongoing health (?) problems. The cost of an accident like this goes on for many years. Posts on this forum alone would indicate that recovery and go home is an over simplification. My nephew (in-law) was run down in this type of accident. He was (is) an extremely experienced rider. He was hospitalised for over 6 months and had to undergo a number of operations. Spleen removed and other internals rearranged but limbs intact if somewhat damaged. Medical resources, recovery processes and an ongoing disability pension were the cost to the community. A large cost. He is, I am happy to say, now back after a number of years on a W800 with an outfit for my niece, and the dog.
As far as being "cute" is concerned, not so. Recreational motorcycling adds to emissions, noise pollution and traffic congestion. Check the OPH, Oxley, Putty and any of the countless good bike roads on a weekend. A large percentage of traffic is (are?) recreational motorcyclists. Perhaps dinghy sailing, bird watching, bush walking or synchronised swimming would fulfill the feel good quota, increase health benefits and have more positive outcomes in general rather than (often) noisy bikes with modified emission control systems operating in a hazardous environment. No matter how good riding makes you feel, it is a choice that carries risk and community costs. That's putting it as it is, not coating it with feel good fairy dust. I love it.
Cheers
The only dispute I would have with the content of your post is accident outcome (1). For example, being T-boned and surviving has left many, yes many, motorcyclists with the loss of a leg and other ongoing health (?) problems. The cost of an accident like this goes on for many years. Posts on this forum alone would indicate that recovery and go home is an over simplification. My nephew (in-law) was run down in this type of accident. He was (is) an extremely experienced rider. He was hospitalised for over 6 months and had to undergo a number of operations. Spleen removed and other internals rearranged but limbs intact if somewhat damaged. Medical resources, recovery processes and an ongoing disability pension were the cost to the community. A large cost. He is, I am happy to say, now back after a number of years on a W800 with an outfit for my niece, and the dog.
As far as being "cute" is concerned, not so. Recreational motorcycling adds to emissions, noise pollution and traffic congestion. Check the OPH, Oxley, Putty and any of the countless good bike roads on a weekend. A large percentage of traffic is (are?) recreational motorcyclists. Perhaps dinghy sailing, bird watching, bush walking or synchronised swimming would fulfill the feel good quota, increase health benefits and have more positive outcomes in general rather than (often) noisy bikes with modified emission control systems operating in a hazardous environment. No matter how good riding makes you feel, it is a choice that carries risk and community costs. That's putting it as it is, not coating it with feel good fairy dust. I love it.
Cheers
the Ferret
Road warrior
If I read your post correctly (and Cormanus's), no one in Australia carries personal medical or liability insurance?
Sorry about your nephew, and glad he is back doing what he loves, but truth is everything has risks Ptero, everything.... walking, running, bicycling, swimming, bathing, driving your car, playing sports, walking down the steps in your house...there is no life without risk. Is being in a motorcycle accident any worse on an individual than a chute not opening while skydiving, than falling off a precipice while out hiking? Or falling down a flight of steps at home?
Did you know your odds of being killed as a pedestrian are twice as high as being killed in a motorcycle accident? ( at least in this country)
1 in 49,601 for pedestrians vs 1 in 99,568 for motorcycle riders (safer to ride than to walk? statistics would say yes)
Most Common Causes of Death Due to Injury in the US
I can only remember the accidents of Randy and Matt on this forum. Both were treated and went home (thank goodness). There may be some residual pain and complications, but as long as those complications don't result in death later, that's treated and gone home..it certainly isn't death. I t-boned a car in 1968 when a lady turned left in front of me. Broken nose, right hand, right foot, 7 broken teeth. Totaled motorcycle. I was wearing an open face helmet. Saved my life as I went over the car and landed on my head on the asphalt on the other side. Was unconscious for 45 minutes. Spent some time in hospital but was treated and went home. I didn't die. I have been around motorcycles and motorcyclists since 1965, spent 17 years in the industry at the golden age of motorcycling (1972-1989). Know many that were in accidents....too many. Some of them died right away. The others were hospitalized for a time and came home. I know of not one that went to the hospital, lived, and became a drain on society for the rest of their life. Not one. You'd think if it was as prevalent as people make it out to be, that in 49 years I would have heard of ONE!
*edit... while eating dinner I did remember ONE, that would have been a drain on society had he lived. Friend named Delbert. Delbert rode a Kawasaki. Was 22 years old I think. He was a diabetic and while riding one day passed out, ran off the road and crashed. Single vehicle crash. Ironically Delbert was ATG geared up, full face helmet, armored top, armored pants, boots gloves, but in a freak happenstance broke his spine in the accident. He was treated and came home, but was paralyzed from the chest down. He would have been on disability the rest of his life but couldn't handle not being able to walk. He took his own life a year later. Nice kid. Brings tears to my eyes even now thinking about it. RIP Delbert.
Now you know why I don't like to get in these gear discussions lol. I believe in gear, even if I don't wear it 100% of the time. Choices and consequences you know?
Sorry about your nephew, and glad he is back doing what he loves, but truth is everything has risks Ptero, everything.... walking, running, bicycling, swimming, bathing, driving your car, playing sports, walking down the steps in your house...there is no life without risk. Is being in a motorcycle accident any worse on an individual than a chute not opening while skydiving, than falling off a precipice while out hiking? Or falling down a flight of steps at home?
Did you know your odds of being killed as a pedestrian are twice as high as being killed in a motorcycle accident? ( at least in this country)
1 in 49,601 for pedestrians vs 1 in 99,568 for motorcycle riders (safer to ride than to walk? statistics would say yes)
Most Common Causes of Death Due to Injury in the US
I can only remember the accidents of Randy and Matt on this forum. Both were treated and went home (thank goodness). There may be some residual pain and complications, but as long as those complications don't result in death later, that's treated and gone home..it certainly isn't death. I t-boned a car in 1968 when a lady turned left in front of me. Broken nose, right hand, right foot, 7 broken teeth. Totaled motorcycle. I was wearing an open face helmet. Saved my life as I went over the car and landed on my head on the asphalt on the other side. Was unconscious for 45 minutes. Spent some time in hospital but was treated and went home. I didn't die. I have been around motorcycles and motorcyclists since 1965, spent 17 years in the industry at the golden age of motorcycling (1972-1989). Know many that were in accidents....too many. Some of them died right away. The others were hospitalized for a time and came home. I know of not one that went to the hospital, lived, and became a drain on society for the rest of their life. Not one. You'd think if it was as prevalent as people make it out to be, that in 49 years I would have heard of ONE!
*edit... while eating dinner I did remember ONE, that would have been a drain on society had he lived. Friend named Delbert. Delbert rode a Kawasaki. Was 22 years old I think. He was a diabetic and while riding one day passed out, ran off the road and crashed. Single vehicle crash. Ironically Delbert was ATG geared up, full face helmet, armored top, armored pants, boots gloves, but in a freak happenstance broke his spine in the accident. He was treated and came home, but was paralyzed from the chest down. He would have been on disability the rest of his life but couldn't handle not being able to walk. He took his own life a year later. Nice kid. Brings tears to my eyes even now thinking about it. RIP Delbert.
Now you know why I don't like to get in these gear discussions lol. I believe in gear, even if I don't wear it 100% of the time. Choices and consequences you know?
Good posts, Ferret, Pterodactyl and RandyB.
And from CIP: 15-20 pages at least, I reckon.
I intend to try to find time to have a hunt for stats on the outcome of motorcycle accidents. I'm with Ptero in suspecting that many of the 'go-home' people carry injuries forever and that there is ongoing cost associated with that—for example acquired brain injuries, loss or sustained damage to limbs, loss of damage to internal organs.
Part of the cost of registering any vehicle in Australia is what's called Compulsory Third Party insurance (CTP) which covers every vehicle for injury caused to another person in the event of an accident. In other words, there's a state-mandated system of compulsory insurance by which those of us who register vehicles contribute to the cost of road trauma. I'm not sure that, in the event of, say, acquired brain injury resulting from an accident, CTP would end up covering all the costs. In that case, at least some of the burden is likely to fall on the public health system (i.e. the taxpayer) would end up with at least some of the burden of supporting the person.
People in Australia do carry personal health insurance; but, because we have a universal health care system that people cannot not opt out of, there are statutory limits on what it can cover. Other than optical, dental and allied medical costs (eg physiotherapy, chiropractic, acupuncture and the like) it basically covers you for choice of doctor, and all or some private hospital costs depending on your level of cover. Most of us requiring serious health care, even when we have private health insurance, end up with a reasonably hefty bill. Anecdotally we hear of horrendous health costs landing on the individual in the US that, because of our Medicare and private health insurance, we would not have to wear, but I've no idea how true they are.
Hence my comment last night about the cost of vehicle accidents to the community in Australia giving the State some right to mandate things like wearing seatbelts and wearing crash helmets, both of which are mandatory everywhere in Australia. Indeed, I think I'm right in saying it is also mandatory to wear an approved helmet when riding a bicycle on a public road anywhere in Australia. I'm not sure how I feel about that.
So far as I know, there are no laws in Australia about motorcycle gear other than helmets; nor am I aware of any proposal for such laws. I agree with Ferret about the helmet and that what other gear you wear is a matter of personal choice made on the basis of an understanding that, if you come off wearing nothing but shorts, a singlet and a helmet, you're likely to receive an induction to the truth of the saying about the world being a belt sander. My choice is to wear protective gear most of the time, although if I'm just going to the local town, I may well be spotted in shorts, a T-shirt and my helmet.
From the little I know, the US has a very different system of health insurance which essentially leaves the burden with the individual. In that case, government may well be reluctant to enter into the debate about helmets and people may well resist if they tried to. God knows, mandating seat belts here was a hard fought battle for the proponents.
If the cost of accidents and health care is sheeted home to the individual, I strongly support Randy's proposition that helmets and gear are a matter of personal choice. However, I would add that every serious accident with a long and expensive rehabilitation period and involving an insurance company ends up driving up premiums and adding to the cost of everybody's insurance so, in the end, anyone who drives or rides and insures ends up shouldering the burden.
I wonder do US (or other) insurance companies offer premium discounts or reduced excesses where people habitually wear helmets or impose some form of additional excess in the event they are not at the time of an accident?
Finally, Pterodactyl, I'm reflecting this morning on whether my Barossa-Valley-inspired characterisation of your post as 'cute' was fair and reasonable. I've not reached a conclusion. That said, I strongly endorse you closing comment, "No matter how good riding makes you feel, it is a choice that carries risk and community costs. That's putting it as it is, not coating it with feel good fairy dust. I love it."
Me too. If there's any suggestion of putting a stop to it in the interests of harm minimisation and cost reduction, I'll be right there at the barricades with you.
But here we start to stray into a political discussion about how far the state should go to protect us from ourselves. I'm not going there.
And from CIP: 15-20 pages at least, I reckon.
I intend to try to find time to have a hunt for stats on the outcome of motorcycle accidents. I'm with Ptero in suspecting that many of the 'go-home' people carry injuries forever and that there is ongoing cost associated with that—for example acquired brain injuries, loss or sustained damage to limbs, loss of damage to internal organs.
Part of the cost of registering any vehicle in Australia is what's called Compulsory Third Party insurance (CTP) which covers every vehicle for injury caused to another person in the event of an accident. In other words, there's a state-mandated system of compulsory insurance by which those of us who register vehicles contribute to the cost of road trauma. I'm not sure that, in the event of, say, acquired brain injury resulting from an accident, CTP would end up covering all the costs. In that case, at least some of the burden is likely to fall on the public health system (i.e. the taxpayer) would end up with at least some of the burden of supporting the person.
People in Australia do carry personal health insurance; but, because we have a universal health care system that people cannot not opt out of, there are statutory limits on what it can cover. Other than optical, dental and allied medical costs (eg physiotherapy, chiropractic, acupuncture and the like) it basically covers you for choice of doctor, and all or some private hospital costs depending on your level of cover. Most of us requiring serious health care, even when we have private health insurance, end up with a reasonably hefty bill. Anecdotally we hear of horrendous health costs landing on the individual in the US that, because of our Medicare and private health insurance, we would not have to wear, but I've no idea how true they are.
Hence my comment last night about the cost of vehicle accidents to the community in Australia giving the State some right to mandate things like wearing seatbelts and wearing crash helmets, both of which are mandatory everywhere in Australia. Indeed, I think I'm right in saying it is also mandatory to wear an approved helmet when riding a bicycle on a public road anywhere in Australia. I'm not sure how I feel about that.
So far as I know, there are no laws in Australia about motorcycle gear other than helmets; nor am I aware of any proposal for such laws. I agree with Ferret about the helmet and that what other gear you wear is a matter of personal choice made on the basis of an understanding that, if you come off wearing nothing but shorts, a singlet and a helmet, you're likely to receive an induction to the truth of the saying about the world being a belt sander. My choice is to wear protective gear most of the time, although if I'm just going to the local town, I may well be spotted in shorts, a T-shirt and my helmet.
From the little I know, the US has a very different system of health insurance which essentially leaves the burden with the individual. In that case, government may well be reluctant to enter into the debate about helmets and people may well resist if they tried to. God knows, mandating seat belts here was a hard fought battle for the proponents.
If the cost of accidents and health care is sheeted home to the individual, I strongly support Randy's proposition that helmets and gear are a matter of personal choice. However, I would add that every serious accident with a long and expensive rehabilitation period and involving an insurance company ends up driving up premiums and adding to the cost of everybody's insurance so, in the end, anyone who drives or rides and insures ends up shouldering the burden.
I wonder do US (or other) insurance companies offer premium discounts or reduced excesses where people habitually wear helmets or impose some form of additional excess in the event they are not at the time of an accident?
Finally, Pterodactyl, I'm reflecting this morning on whether my Barossa-Valley-inspired characterisation of your post as 'cute' was fair and reasonable. I've not reached a conclusion. That said, I strongly endorse you closing comment, "No matter how good riding makes you feel, it is a choice that carries risk and community costs. That's putting it as it is, not coating it with feel good fairy dust. I love it."
Me too. If there's any suggestion of putting a stop to it in the interests of harm minimisation and cost reduction, I'll be right there at the barricades with you.
But here we start to stray into a political discussion about how far the state should go to protect us from ourselves. I'm not going there.
the Ferret
Road warrior
Interesting post Cormanus. One I must ponder for awhile. The lack of personal insurance thing in Australia really makes so sense to me. First responsibility in this country falls upon the individual and it behooves them to have personal medical, comprehensive and liabilty insurance paid for by that individual. Don't carry enough of that and you can lose everything, including business and homes. Disability paid for by the goverment ( thru taxes) here can be very difficult to get, although sometimes it seems lots of healthy people are on it.
Pterodactyl_imp
Road warrior
Well we do agree strongly on:
Risk, yes, you are right there. Life itself is a risk. I suppose I would not be as risk averse in my recreational pursuits as some. I don't think I have ever not indulged in some form of recreation or sport that has not carried some risk. I accept those risks. Happily. Sometimes the risks I have taken have had the potential to create public expense in the form of emergency services being required to get me out of my own mess. For me, in my 70th year, not yet. I may have had a little luck but planning and preparation have helped.
Those odds you quote bring to mind the great Mark Twain who said, not originally (that honour belongs to one Benjamin Disraeli): "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics". I quote from the site:
Quote:One year odds are approximated by dividing the 2000 population (275,306,000) by the number of deaths.
I guess the entire, well almost, population could be regarded as pedestrian whereas the number of motorcyclists are considerably less. Transposing that fact to the approximation above would perhaps, no certainly, lead to a different conclusion regarding real odds. For example, by population, the chance of dying by lightning strike while on a golf course holding a one iron to the sky, during a fierce electrical storm, is next to zero. If one is a member of a group who chooses to indulge in that practice then the odds calculated within and confined to that group may not look so good.
As far as survival goes I know, personally, only one who has lost a leg. I met him at a rally where he was riding a modified three wheeler. He belongs to a support group of motorcyclists who have some form of disability suffered as a result of a motorcycle accident. It's a terrible shame Delbert didn't have a support group, it may have helped. Coincidentally, one of our motorcycling magazines recently featured an article on a bloke who is trying to get back on the race track after losing below the knee in a road bike accident. Maybe it's just Aussies. But I doubt it.
Speaking of Aussies, third party insurance in this country is compulsory for all road registered vehicles. Apart from that, personal insurance and private health cover is optional. However fault provisions apply to all forms of insurance and, if fault is proved, then the situation can be complex, with insurance companies loath to pay out the courts can come into play. There is a taxpayer funded Public Health Insurance scheme (Medicare), funded by a levy on all taxpayers. In the event of permanent disability, and limited assets, it is possible to be wholly supported by the State. That's a simple and not too accurate take but if you are interested there is information available through the usual source. Or Cormanus, who in his usual erudite manner, has given a better description while I lingered over the post button.
Cheers
I thought I had made that clear. I am averse however to unsolicited advice on the matter. Not that you have offered any, by the way. I do believe however that in today's world of structured motorcycle licence training schemes, as they exist in Australia at least, learners should receive enough information on the matter to be able to make their own choices in an informed manner.The ferret_imp said:
Risk, yes, you are right there. Life itself is a risk. I suppose I would not be as risk averse in my recreational pursuits as some. I don't think I have ever not indulged in some form of recreation or sport that has not carried some risk. I accept those risks. Happily. Sometimes the risks I have taken have had the potential to create public expense in the form of emergency services being required to get me out of my own mess. For me, in my 70th year, not yet. I may have had a little luck but planning and preparation have helped.
Those odds you quote bring to mind the great Mark Twain who said, not originally (that honour belongs to one Benjamin Disraeli): "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics". I quote from the site:
Quote:One year odds are approximated by dividing the 2000 population (275,306,000) by the number of deaths.
I guess the entire, well almost, population could be regarded as pedestrian whereas the number of motorcyclists are considerably less. Transposing that fact to the approximation above would perhaps, no certainly, lead to a different conclusion regarding real odds. For example, by population, the chance of dying by lightning strike while on a golf course holding a one iron to the sky, during a fierce electrical storm, is next to zero. If one is a member of a group who chooses to indulge in that practice then the odds calculated within and confined to that group may not look so good.
As far as survival goes I know, personally, only one who has lost a leg. I met him at a rally where he was riding a modified three wheeler. He belongs to a support group of motorcyclists who have some form of disability suffered as a result of a motorcycle accident. It's a terrible shame Delbert didn't have a support group, it may have helped. Coincidentally, one of our motorcycling magazines recently featured an article on a bloke who is trying to get back on the race track after losing below the knee in a road bike accident. Maybe it's just Aussies. But I doubt it.
Speaking of Aussies, third party insurance in this country is compulsory for all road registered vehicles. Apart from that, personal insurance and private health cover is optional. However fault provisions apply to all forms of insurance and, if fault is proved, then the situation can be complex, with insurance companies loath to pay out the courts can come into play. There is a taxpayer funded Public Health Insurance scheme (Medicare), funded by a levy on all taxpayers. In the event of permanent disability, and limited assets, it is possible to be wholly supported by the State. That's a simple and not too accurate take but if you are interested there is information available through the usual source. Or Cormanus, who in his usual erudite manner, has given a better description while I lingered over the post button.
Cheers
