Legal Minimum Gear Standard

Originally Posted by Ping

I'd like to take a leap here and say they MUST know it goes with the job... I mean firemen KNOW they're going to come across some pretty gruesome sights... cops will have to attend murder scenes, ambulance crews will have to attend accidents...

This is true but try ringing someone's doorbell, seeing their face when they see the uniform and knowing its bad news, and then telling them that the person they thought was coming home is not and is in fact lying on a mortuary slab and that they will only be able to ID the body from their belongings as their body was cut in two and then crushed by a lorry. Not nice.

I'm all for scrapping National Insurance and going for medical insurance instead. If you smoke, drink too much, are clinically obese, take drugs etc. then your premiums go up. Everyone has a duty to look after themselves and I for one am tired of paying for someone else's medical bills because they couldn't be arsed caring.

We come back to Natural Selection. Darwinism at its best.

MK

Originally Posted by Mythkind

This is true but try ringing someone's doorbell, seeing their face when they see the uniform and knowing its bad news, and then telling them that the person they thought was coming home is not and is in fact lying on a mortuary slab and that they will only be able to ID the body from their belongings as their body was cut in two and then crushed by a lorry. Not nice.

And just how the feck would protective clothing help in this kind of circumstance? Typical bloody liberal response to over dramatise a discussion to pull on the heart strings. You forgot to mention the sweet little blonde haired kids and the poor little puppy dog that will now have to be put down.

MYTHKIND

We seem to be straying from the point a little. I was born 43 years ago with a severe disability (spastic) where would natural selection leave me? dont say I heard it all before. I have been in and out of hospital since the age of 4. I was told three weeks ago I had a serious condition and was told I needed to be in hospital the next day I am still waiting so their you go **** wit natural selection does work!!!!!!!!!!

Now getting back to the subject matter. I have been riding bikes for 27 years had an off at 16 only wearing t shirt witnesses told my parents I was dead in fact I had taken the skin off my **** and hands. I have never ridden without leathers since. When my wife or son ride pillion they wear textile clothing with armour and back protector WHAT EVERYTHE WEATHER.

Only fools ride in t shirts, shorts and sandals!!!!!!!!!!

Rather than try to enforce any new rules and regulations on people (which are bound to be unwelcome) why not introduce a new rule.

Anyone who is treated in hospital after a RTA who was not wearing CE approved boots, helmet, jackets, trousers and gloves gets a bill for their treatment.

People should have the option to purchase an additional insurance policy to cover such bills but the onus should be on the rider to decide what he wants to wear whilst riding and therefore has to pay appropriately.

Having said that I think anyone taking a child on a motorbike without the necessary protective gear should be dealt in the same as anyone one else who unnecessarily puts a child in danger!

Mike, I think that's an excellent idea.


.

Originally Posted by Mike1234

Rather than try to enforce any new rules and regulations on people (which are bound to be unwelcome) why not introduce a new rule.

Anyone who is treated in hospital after a RTA who was not wearing CE approved boots, helmet, jackets, trousers and gloves gets a bill for their treatment.

People should have the option to purchase an additional insurance policy to cover such bills but the onus should be on the rider to decide what he wants to wear whilst riding and therefore has to pay appropriately.

Having said that I think anyone taking a child on a motorbike without the necessary protective gear should be dealt in the same as anyone one else who unnecessarily puts a child in danger!

Bloody brilliant

Originally Posted by Mike1234

Rather than try to enforce any new rules and regulations on people (which are bound to be unwelcome) why not introduce a new rule.

Anyone who is treated in hospital after a RTA who was not wearing CE approved boots, helmet, jackets, trousers and gloves gets a bill for their treatment.

People should have the option to purchase an additional insurance policy to cover such bills but the onus should be on the rider to decide what he wants to wear whilst riding and therefore has to pay appropriately.

Agreed an excellent idea which we could expand to cover, anyone who smokes, rides a pedal cycle, falls off a ladder if someone wasn't holding it, industrial accidents as the bill can be sent to the emlployer, etc etc etc. So your proposal is that the national health should only be available to people who have not been involved in the cause of their own need. well theres always fault somewhere so lets just sack the NHS and have a totally private system where the insurance covers the bills. No thanks.

One day you'll need the NHS, you'll be glad its there it may even be your own fault even if its not biking related. When you do need it you'll be glad its there please don't suggest the slippery slope of privatisation

[Sid Squid]

Originally Posted by Mike1234

Rather than try to enforce any new rules and regulations on people (which are bound to be unwelcome) why not introduce a new rule.

Anyone who is treated in hospital after a RTA who was not wearing CE approved boots, helmet, jackets, trousers and gloves gets a bill for their treatment.

People should have the option to purchase an additional insurance policy to cover such bills but the onus should be on the rider to decide what he wants to wear whilst riding and therefore has to pay appropriately.

Having said that I think anyone taking a child on a motorbike without the necessary protective gear should be dealt in the same as anyone one else who unnecessarily puts a child in danger!

Patch got it right after reading this.

Welcome to the Safety Nazi State, we don't want anybody doing, (or worse, thinking), other than in the right State Endorsed manner, there's no room for free will or individuality, conformity is everything and all matters can be decided by a quick squint at a balance sheet.

Mood after reading this post: A mixture of depression and anger, you lot do as you like, I really am happy for you, pi55 off deciding on my behalf there should a law to save me from myself, (whatever I do), and worst of all the suggestion that that should be decided on monetary grounds. I can think of a dozen more things that this thin argument could be applied to on top of the already mentioned obesity and drinking and smoking.

Where will it end?

I know lets just ban bikes and be done with it, that way we'll all live forever.

This thread is amazing. We're bikers fgs, WE DONT WANT TO GIVE THE GOVERNMENT MORE POWER.

Its always the public that make knee jerk reactions you know, the government happens to love them though, because it gives them the perfect opertunity to gain more power and fool a gulable population that what its doing is for peoples own good.

Examples - banning guns, reducing speed limits due to a single freak accidents, etc.

Its no wonder polititians have to lie constantly, this thread illustrates some seriously short sighted thinking.

Agreed an excellent idea which we could expand to cover, anyone who smokes, rides a pedal cycle, falls off a ladder if someone wasn't holding it, industrial accidents as the bill can be sent to the emlployer, etc etc etc. So your proposal is that the national health should only be available to people who have not been involved in the cause of their own need. well theres always fault somewhere so lets just sack the NHS and have a totally private system where the insurance covers the bills. No thanks.

Blimey, isn't that a little over the top. That's just the sort of knee jerk reactions that we all slag off politicians for!

Instead of taking the discussion to the next logical step you just jumped straight ahead and started suggestions that are, to be frank, just ridiculous. It's the whole point of this thread to stop just short sightedness and possibly prevent the government from giving bikers a kicking that they seem to think we so richly deserve.

Besides isn't the smoking is already covered thanks to the tax on it?

One day you'll need the NHS, you'll be glad its there it may even be your own fault even if its not biking related. When you do need it you'll be glad its there please don't suggest the slippery slope of privatisation

On the other hand I've used the NHS on numerous occasions whilst riding, well, falling off whilst racing. Probably more than most people on this board. The NHS already sees riding a bike as a major no no. I've been put at the back of the queue on so many occasions despite statistics that point out that horse riding, tennis and golf are far and away more likely to cause serious injury and death.

The current state of the NHS is deplorable and any way we can reduce the overhead through people being inconsiderate and careless has to be considered. Riding without wearing the appropriate clothing places an unnecessary burden on the system.

Mood after reading this post: A mixture of depression and anger, you lot do as you like, I really am happy for you, pi55 off deciding on my behalf there should a law to save me from myself, (whatever I do), and worst of all the suggestion that that should be decided on monetary grounds. I can think of a dozen more things that this thin argument could be applied to on top of the already mentioned obesity and drinking and smoking.

Interesting opinions.

Have to admit that my first reaction was, well, a rather violent outburst. Who are you to decide that your rights to do something are more important than mine? Who are you to decide that I should help cover the medical bills for your arrogance and carelessness?

Having considered it I am rather worried that you both see the issue of the burden placed on our NHS through the unnecessary, and totally avoidable, need to have the freedom to ride around in a pair of shorts as being acceptable. Surely giving you that freedom without burdening the NHS is a more helpful approach?

Where would YOU draw the line then?