WEAR WHAT THE HELL YOU WANT, WE DONT CARE, JUST DONT EXPECT SYMPATHY, HELP, OR RESTRAINED MOCK TAKING WHEN YOU COME OFF. IN FACT, EXPECT LAUGHTER AS YOU SLOWLY DISAPPEAR LEAVING NOTHING BUT A FAT TRAIL BEHIND YOU! FUCK ME THERES SOME RETARDS ON THIS FORUM.
I learned the hard way on a short jaunt on my ZXR750 - I was wearing helmet; gloves; leather bomber jacket; Levis; and padded weightlifting boots. Accelerating at about 15mph, the throttle jammed open because I had been to Snetterton a day earlier for a practice day - I had picked up lumps of rubber marbles from the track, some of which had got stuck on the carbs cable quadrant, which forced the carbs wide open and in a panic I couldn't use the Off Run Off button properly - I kept missing the mid-position. I dropped the bike down at about 25 - 30mph and tried to get clear. Not quite, got foot stuck under footrest; sole ripped of boot and the footrest broke and stabbed me in the sole of my foot (stitches - that hurt the most). Bomber jacket sleeve rode up my forearm so I got a nice spot of gravel rash, but although my thigh was bruised from the thump onto the road, the Levis were hardly scuffed. Bike was written off - it slid into a kerb and a low road sign. I now wear leathers every time I ride the bike.
,,,,, and I just hope you're not taking up valuable A&E resources when some one who really needs them is there.
Not that he’s probably paid lots of tax and entitled to it though, eh. More are treated in ae for rugby, football and horse riding incidents each year. Maybe they should be told not to clog the system up too...so what is a viable reason? Heart tack - too fat or smoked so don’t come here! Trip or fall - you should have looked where you are going and worn a helmet, better to be safe than sorry, so don’t come here!
....here we go again. key points made here are not about the obvious that you'll hurt yourself more riding in shorts and flip flops - I think that's a given. What I object to is a whole lot of nonsense around compulsion and the exclusion of those that are seen to not act "responsibly" (whatever that means) from health services and should be left to suffer the consequences. That is RETARDED as far as I'm concerned As a number of posters have already stated, this is a very thin end of a very thick wedge with the logical conclusion that stuff that is inherently dangerous will ultimately be outlawed (either through legislation or commercial pressure - insurance cover etc).
Ignoring the potential for injuriy... it's not so much compulsion, more like social responsibility. Though requirements for protective clothing maybe over the horizon anyway. I believe that you're compelled to wear gloves as well as a helmet in France these days. Because others smoke, have poor diets, engage in other dangerous pursuits, and you've paid your taxes so feel entitled, is a pretty lame excuse to justify being a further drain on society's resources.
.. but there's also a whole bunch of common sense, even with respect to how much of a 'drain on society' your choices are. Head injuries are particularly high risk and out of proportion 'drain on society' if you ride a motorbike without a helmet, people brake legs and arms and skin themselves doing all manner of activities.
In this sort of thread, people wanting new laws need to ask themselves, "Where are these new laws headed? Where will they stop? Why will they stop *there* (where you think they should or actually will stop)?". All of these questions need answering. Well no, they don't need to ask themselves all that. Not at all. Instead, they can see where they end up, when we all end up there. The drain on society argument is a very short hop to *all activities will be controlled, for the benefit of society as a whole". Enjoy your stay there, my friends.
I was at a 'Biker Down' first aid/incident management course on Friday. Latest figures from Glos. Fire Brigade show a cost of avg. £1.9 million per KSI. Given that someone riding in shorts at high speed, if they come off, are likely going to cost the taxpayer £1.9 mil (which they very likely won't have paid in taxes), why should it be allowed? The 'thin end of the wedge' argument is rubbish - there are lots of improvements to safety in law that haven't led to what people are afraid will happen. The 'other types of injury' argument typically is much smaller in financial terms and probably is covered by taxes. I'll ask again - what is the benefit to society of letting someone be allowed to potentially waste such a huge sum by being such a twat?
Wow, you’re amazing. If only you had applied that skill to racing and you would have been challenging for TT podiums As far as nanny state goes, although I agree to some extent, our laws are generally more relaxed than our European counterparts; noise restrictions, reflective stickers, breathalysers and no filtering, etc... us Brits do love a bit of egotistical melodrama though!
I find that very hard to believe. That every Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) incident incurs £1.9 million in costs. Where’s the source of that ‘fact’ please?
