| Author |
Message |
    
Chellem
| | Posted on Saturday, December 05, 2009 - 11:11 pm: | 
|
Riding a motorcycle on non-public roads cannot be regulated and therefore no competency standard can be applied. For any non-regulated activity taking place on private property you are on your own.
So, even though it's the same activity, with the same risk factors, if it's on public roads, you vehemently believe that safety gear should be mandated, but if it happens on some dirt trail in my backyard, we should have at it.
So, it's really not about the safety aspect then. If it was out of concern for my safety, the same rule would apply.
You are equating an ability to choose to use all the gear all the time with basic competency. But only on public roads.
I could hurt myself just as badly, and cost just as much money as the "public burden", so THAT'S not the motivation either.
Not about my safety, not about the cost of my injuries. Just simply about a desire to regulate my activities then?
Hmm. |
Twowheeldream
| | Posted on Saturday, December 05, 2009 - 11:25 pm: |
|
Football and motorcycling don't compare as far as safety gear goes... the point of motorcycling isn't to crash into, or take down the other guy...
the competency argument is a little off too... gear doesn't make you competent, nor does the decision to wear, or not to wear.
although I see how you feel that, what you consider to be a poor or idiotic decision, would contribute to one's overall competency as a human being. still, the argument feels a little off.
safety is not the "first rule" in motorcycling... or any other activity, the term "Safety First" is an add campaign.
Yes I understand what you mean.... just don't necessarily agree 100%, there are other firsts
if you want to argue a first rule in motorcycling it should be "rubber side down" and that has more to do with proper riding technique and skills, than safety gear.
your main argument at this point seems to be that you don't understand why people have a hard time being forced to do something that they know and agree is a good idea...
you dont seem to like a defiant attitude
and in the same right.... kinda makes the people who don't want helmet law's seem like a defiant teenager
no overbearing parent that "just know's better" ever understands the need to be able to make the decision/mistake for oneself
the need to make the decision/mistake for oneself regardless of the
"known ways to do things" is the cornerstone for the argument against it being mandated.
Chellem, take a deep breath dude, lol, your last post looks like you are so stressed your about to have a heart attack.
I think that RedBuell gets what your saying, but the picture you are painting is done with such a broad stroke, its beyond the collective ability for any of the people posting here to be able to narrow down an answer to your somewhat hypothetical/rhetorical question.
just a side note, no offense meant to anyone, i know i come across as an ass sometimes
} |
Redbuelljunkie
| | Posted on Saturday, December 05, 2009 - 11:26 pm: |
|
No- it's about enforceability. It is impossible to regulate what happens on private property, and therefore no reason to have a competency standard. It is easily regulated on public roads, and therefore should be part of the proof of competency. Safety is always rule number one- but you cannot regulate where you cannot enforce. |
Redbuelljunkie
| | Posted on Saturday, December 05, 2009 - 11:34 pm: |
|
Twowheel- well put. From my point of view, however, safety has to be the first rule for motorcycling- mainly because being dressed properly takes place before you put a foot on a peg. So, "rubber side down" would necessarily come after being properly dressed to ride.
And you did not come across as an ass at all- you present a well spoken and rational opinion. |
Chellem
| | Posted on Saturday, December 05, 2009 - 11:39 pm: |
|
Far from a heart attack, believe me.
I am frustrated though, because what I've been trying to do this entire time is show how the logic of trying to enforce safety via mandates could be applied to other things. And, eventually, that if it's silly to be applied to other things, logically, we'd have to at least consider that it's silly here too.
What it seems to come down to is that we are only allowed to discuss the very narrow view of safety articles on motorcyclists operating on public roads. Whenever I move away from that, I'm evidently going off topic. I see the topics as the same.
I'm painting with broader strokes in an attempt to get people to see the broader picture.
Obviously, I have failed.
Personally, I don't feel ANY personal safety choices should be mandated by any government body. The only time the government should step in is when my behavior or choices may DIRECTLY injure others. Speed limits, going the wrong way down one-way streets, running red lights - these are personal choices that could directly injure another, and therefore, should be mandated.
Whether or not I wear leathers while I'm doing it should not be an issue to anyone but me.
And that goes for football gear, boxing gear, bicycle helmets, on down to wearing knee pads while hiking on rocky terrain. Gear is available to me, I can choose to use it or not.
Making a different choice from another person does not make me too incompetant to operate a vehicle safely.
I'd like to say thank you for both the lively discourse AND for being my surrogate mother. Discourse is always welcome - your parental attitude toward my personal choices, less so. |
Redbuelljunkie
| | Posted on Saturday, December 05, 2009 - 11:54 pm: |
|
It has been a lively discourse, and I respect your opinion. |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Sunday, December 06, 2009 - 12:01 am: |
|
I just hope they dont try and outlaw the things alltogether, I mean really think of the CHILDREN! |
Phelan
| | Posted on Sunday, December 06, 2009 - 12:03 am: |
|
I agree with Chellem and TWD 100%, most clearly by their last posts. I feel that things can directly physically hurt other human beings i.e. Speed limits, stop signs, one-way streets should be within governments control. What I wear to protect my body should be up to me; part of my God given gift of free will to choose. That makes me that much more "competent" when I choose to wear proper gear, and "at my own risk" when I don't. |
Twowheeldream
| | Posted on Sunday, December 06, 2009 - 12:09 am: |
|
From my point of view, however, safety has to be the first rule for motorcycling- mainly because being dressed properly takes place before you put a foot on a peg.
Only if you wear or want to wear safety gear, and not required to actually or physically ride a motorcycle.
I do think that safety gear should be mandated in a contact sport... something where the point of the sport, taking the other guy down, could and usually does cause injury.
In a sport or activity like ours, where the point is to enjoy without incedent, it should be up to you as the rider to asses your own ability to do that, and decide what your risk level is.... and then decide on weather or not safety gear is an option to reduce the risk of injury in the possible event of an accident...
Now, being a rider in Orlando, where I see tourists driving the wrong way down the street on a regular basis, and all the college students racing around the lost tourists to get where they need to go.... I think its a good idea to wear some gear.
On the other hand.... if I were in a more rural area with less traffic and tourists... I would like the option to go out for a liesure cruise without a helmet and jacket once in a while. |
Twowheeldream
| | Posted on Sunday, December 06, 2009 - 12:13 am: |
|
lol, riding a Buell.... leisure cruise... sorry, just doens't seem right
WEAR YOUR DAMN HELMET |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Sunday, December 06, 2009 - 04:28 pm: |
|
Now, is competency at all related to responsibility? If you are responsible you should be competent, but the other way around may not be true.
And.. will the committee that takes responsibility for dictating your life's actions be competent? |
Benm2
| | Posted on Sunday, December 06, 2009 - 04:32 pm: |
|
Really, this argument stopped making sense after the "equestrians are self regulating" discourse. You've chosen your horse & chariot, and you'll go full speed ahead. Your argument just doesn't hold water, its an arbitrary pick. There are PLENTY of other areas where proper safety gear would be a benefit, both on public property & off.
I just hope you never get an oppportunity to speak to the media and cause a public outcry "for the good of us all". |
New12r
| | Posted on Sunday, December 06, 2009 - 06:37 pm: |
|
Some of you forgot that a mere 30 years ago gear was a pair of work boots and jeans...
The Govt has no right to tell me how to be safe, it is my choice. I dont need to justify it to anyone for any reason. I love America for this.
You want safer roads, how bout a better licensing exam? I took my MC test in a PARKING LOT! I rode in a freaking circle, panic braked at about 15mph and was told I was good to go. The written test was a joke and too many riders and drivers dont have a clue how to "operate" the vehicle of choice within the rules placed before them anyhow, let alone outside of those rules.
So lets take some stupid kid at the gas station down the road. Buys a brandy new GSXR1000. A week later he is in a wheelchair and has a broken arm. Gear would not have saved his broken legs and arms, he rear ended a car at 80mph because he could not stop fast enough from 150mph.
Proper training would have saved his ass, not a damn jacket and gloves. |
Crackhead
| | Posted on Monday, December 07, 2009 - 07:12 am: |
|
look into what the military is doing for gear requirement and training.
They make the sports bike riders drag pegs, stopies, ect. |
|
