Sad but ironic Karma

[raesewell]

I saw that one Andy, very sad. Maybe regular MRI scans would be the answer.

[richtea]

OK, OK, if we're going straight on to bad ways to die, have a read here, and stop worrying about the exotic ones like motorcycling and boxing:
https://visual.ons.gov.uk/what-are-the-top-causes-of-death-by-age-and-gender/

Click on the selectors below the graph for different ages.

So, if you're under 35, you need to be saved from yourself - there's a lot of RTAs & suicide. That's where a compulsory helmet & seatbelt might make the difference. For old geezers, we have the experience and cash to make smart decisions about helmets, riding gear, bike servicing, decent tyres, etc.
21 year olds don't have that yet.

If you're above 35 (yes, we all are, right?), basically eat carefully (but a bit less than me  - I am trying ), look out for cancer, and don't get stressed about it.
All this on the day they announce diabetes rates have doubled in 20 years.

Hey ho. Get on the bike, ride moderately crazy. Smile.

[OxMan]

...sunscreen...? 🤪

[Phmode]

After an accident there is always a third party involved, as already mentioned, the poor sod that has to clear up the mess.

That argument only applies if the only mess ever to be cleared up is a result of, in this example, someone not wearing a helmet.

I'm not talking only about motorcyclists, earlier you mentioned some other pastimes.
Sometimes people, such as fell walkers, rock climbers, pot hollers and many others go off in, for instance bad weather in the case of fell walkers, get themselves into trouble and then the rescue services have to go and bail them out. Pot hollers often get stuck and need help to get out. Sky diving, that normally ends in death if something goes wrong.

Again, it only applies if the only people who require help are those who've not used the correct PPE.

...or their mother and father, brother and sister, wife/husband/other significant, kids, employer etc etc.

And that doesn't count the cops, medics, A&E staff etc who have to put up with my daftness.

The one taking the risk is NEVER the only one affected by the outcome. Even I, who have no dependents or any living relatives who care, would hurt at least one lovely, undeserving soul with my selfishness.

And I think that that is what it is, selfishness. But that's just me 

[Matt]

Wow, this went quick!

Whilst it's fun to debate the law and risk stuff etc, it makes me chuckle slightly too that America's healthcare is completely mental, everyone has to pay lots, yet at least a minority is fine with a degree of that being down to freedom to bosh your head.

I read somewhere (and heard, that Dan Carlin guy is great) that America spent (2013 or something) twice the amount of public money on healthcare than the UK. As a percentage of GDP I think it was. Slightly off topic but yay for insurance companies! .

[Blobby]

My only issue is the time spent caring and repairing people with severe road rash, which would have been avoided if they wore the appropriate PPE clogging up the health care system..

I think it should be law that motorcyclists wear some sort of clothes depending on their stature, I mean no one want to see me riding naked down the road   

[black-k1]

After an accident there is always a third party involved, as already mentioned, the poor sod that has to clear up the mess.

That argument only applies if the only mess ever to be cleared up is a result of, in this example, someone not wearing a helmet.

I'm not talking only about motorcyclists, earlier you mentioned some other pastimes.
Sometimes people, such as fell walkers, rock climbers, pot hollers and many others go off in, for instance bad weather in the case of fell walkers, get themselves into trouble and then the rescue services have to go and bail them out. Pot hollers often get stuck and need help to get out. Sky diving, that normally ends in death if something goes wrong.

Again, it only applies if the only people who require help are those who've not used the correct PPE.

...or their mother and father, brother and sister, wife/husband/other significant, kids, employer etc etc.

And that doesn't count the cops, medics, A&E staff etc who have to put up with my daftness.

The one taking the risk is NEVER the only one affected by the outcome. Even I, who have no dependents or any living relatives who care, would hurt at least one lovely, undeserving soul with my selfishness.

And I think that that is what it is, selfishness. But that's just me 

As said before, the services (police, fire, A&E etc.) would only be impacted if their involvement was only ever to “pick up the pieces” of such events where a single individual took a risk beyond what others felt was appropriate. Like all, “risk takers” make their contribution to the state, in  the form of taxes, to pay for such services as and when they are needed, regardless of why they are needed. Whether we pay too much or not enough is a very different debate.

The argument that families are impacted is totally true and one that needs to be considered by the risk taker before taking the risk. The state, or any other faceless group does not know my relationship with my family better than me and is not better sighted to decide if the risk I am taking is appropriate in the eyes of my family. Only my family and I can do that.

As a parent of children who have just started on their journey into motorised road use (moped last year, car this year) I am very aware of all the risks. I don’t want any harm to come to my children, ever! That said, I am also very aware that they have to live their lives and that includes taking risks, some of which will result in things going wrong for them. I, as their father, am no longer qualified to dictate to them what they can and can’t do. Why would the state think it is better placed than me to know what is good for my children? They are individuals and must be allowed to make their own decisions (with support if required).

All of the points you raise Brian are the exact justifications that could easily be used for banning motorcycling as a whole. Who is qualified enough to say that the dangerous past time of motorcycling is a risk worth taking, that riding without protective clothing is a risk worth taking and that riding without a helmet is a risk worth taking other than the person taking those risks?

[Phmode]

Having never had kids I have no feelings such as yours, thank the lord. It must be terrifying seeing them starting out. However, you are absolutely qualified to not dictate but certainly guide them, firmly. The one thing they don't have is fear, experience, knowledge, skill, ability, judgement to name but half a dozen. You on the other hand have all of those in spades. Your children are embarking on many parallel apprenticeships and as with all apprenticeships there are rules, guidance, best practices, knowledge and experience handed down from those who know and do better, some of which should come from you and some of which won't.

I'm really glad that my dad 'guided' me with a really firm hand; when I was 16 he knew sod all, by the time I was 21 he had learned so, so much. Thanks dad.

Also, you are learned in the ways of the authorities and their views on motorcycling and it will, I am certain, all come crashing down sooner rather than later. It is almost an inevitability of our society's 'progress'. I'm amazed that when the car came along they didn't ban the horse, I'm sure they would these days. Once autonomous cars and trucks are the norm, bikers will merely be a hindrance to their technology and will come under increasing threat, especially if they are then the only casualties on the road. Giving them the ammunition they need to outlaw us now is just plain daft.

But, as with gun 'control' in the US, it is the daftness of the few that threaten the 'freedom' of the majority. Likewise, those who make the headlines for not toeing the 'norm' line on motorcycles, horses, bicycles, wings etc. are what threaten the freedom of the majority.

I have a very high tolerance of being very close to opposing vehicles at speed. Most bikers don't and I sure don't need anyone telling me how daft it can be at times but I also don't need anyone legislating against how I choose to ride and drive any more than you do when it comes to what to wear.

I used to ride into town in a shirt and trousers (helmet, gloves and boots) on a rare, hot summer's day because I was going no faster than Mrs. Grimble on her sit up-and-beg bicycle and in fact, was overtaken on the downhill stretch into Newbury many times by madcap lycra lout cyclists. These days I would never dream of riding without the three essentials and would be happy for them all to be mandatory.

Personally I can't see why I am not allowed to tinker with my own central heating boiler (gibbo is spinning and ranting as he reads this) but my distant neighbours are probably grateful it is not allowed. When it comes to some things, being allowed to take risks is best not left to the individual even if they are the only one who will be blown up.

The guy in New York could easily have been hit on the head at speed by a flying rock, lost conciousness and then there would have been half a ton of uncontrolled chrome flying into the traffic or worse, pedestrians. The idea that he was only risking his own life is fatuous. None of us can calculate the risk, we can only hazard a guess at it. Likewise, we can never calculate that the risk is only to ourselves.

Minimising the impact when we guess wrong is our duty to society, in my opinion.

[TomL]

Blimey Brian. Well said.

"when I was 16 he knew sod all," I guese that you mean, when I was 16 I knew sod all,

[black-k1]

Nicely written Brian, but I think it misses the point. I think the point was best made by Gandhi

[raesewell]

I don't think we disagree about making mistakes, it's about the consequences of those mistakes and how it affects others around us.

[Belco100]

To spin this around slightly, should motorcyclist be forced to wear:

• CE approved boots, gloves, jackets and trousers at all times?
• A reflective Sam Brown style belt?

Serious question, and curious to the answers 

[raesewell]

I would say Yes except for the reflective belt, but if it was required I would.

[black-k1]

Serious question.  Why allow motorcycles at all?

[raesewell]

Serious question.  Why allow motorcycles at all?

I don't think that is really a serious question, is it? 
If it is, because we luv em