1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Darwin Theory For Bikers A1 Stevenage

Discussion in 'Ducati General Discussion' started by Diver, May 15, 2017.

  1. 14th May 3 bikers on the A1 nr Stevenage, no leathers, no number plates with pillion passengers riding like lunatics...How can you defend Bikers with these idiots ??
     
  2. Well if they were planning on visiting Bike-Stop yesterday for its event. There was a high police presents continually circling the old-town as I witnessed.
     
  3. I can assure you these guys couldn't give a shyte about any "police presence" no way would they catch this group
     
  4. By contrast I watched an L plater t'other day on a new suzi 125 thruppeny bit a junction that I stopped to let him by on. He was wearing tracky bottoms and trainers. No socks or gloves. His ankles looked hugely exposed. He was wobbly and I thought he may hit the kerb but he made it just. I dont hold out much hope for his future on that bike.
     
  5. Natural selection at its finest, i recently test rode a bike in shorts. Most stupid idea ever ever had, had a helmet and gloves but never felt more exposed. I don't know how people do it. Yes it should be a legal requirement but if you're that stupid to go out like it. Its your own fault!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. these guys on the A1 had removed their number plates so no regard for the law what so ever or anyone elses safety
     
  7. Recently I have been struggling with the idea of legal requirement vs personal responsibility.

    If we were all responsible for our own health - private health insurance, etc - there is no question in my mind at all. Compulsory safety equipment is a violation of personal freedom.
    However, we have an NHS. You aren't just risking your own hide, you are effectively spending other people's money. You have a duty of care, in effect, to reduce the financial cost of your personal choice regarding protection. Is the answer compulsory safety gear? Paying a contribution to the cost of your healthcare commensurate with your choice of safety gear? An NHS that only provides life-saving care but nothing more, in such cases?

    Where is the sweet-spot in terms of personal responsibility vs public interest?
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  8. I saw these guys actually turn up at the Bike stop for a few minutes. As you say no protective kit and revving their crappy heaps off the limiter etc etc. No license etc a probability for some of them. They are a tiny minority and the law of averages means they will soon learn a harsh lesson.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Im all for letting people learn the hard way. I did and look at me. I turned out to be fucking fantastic.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Face Palm Face Palm x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. You are heading down a slippery slope here. People choose to do all sorts of things which entail a risk, or even a likelihood, that a need for medical care will result. Climbing mountains, playing rugby, smoking cigarettes, getting pregnant ... Wearing inadequate footwear on a bike is the least of it. If protecting the budget for healthcare were the priority, a very long list of personal freedoms would have to be curtailed.

    But only for the less wealthy. Those rich enough to pay for their own healthcare if they become sick or injured would have full freedoms, whilst the rest of us poorer folk would lose them.

    As it is, in principle the NHS provides healthcare for all including those who have self-harmed, attempted suicide, been injured whilst committing crimes, acted foolishly, etc etc. If doctors, or nurses, or hospital administrators were expected to sort patients into "deserving" and "undeserving" categories their task would be impossibly difficult, not to mention subject to continual (and expensive) legal challenges.

    Coming back to reality, most of the NHS budget is spent on babies and children, old people, those with inherited genetic conditions, those who have caught infectious diseases, patients with cancer/strokes/heart attacks, and the mentally ill. Treating injuries from road accidents is not really a large component. And not many patients could be categorised as "undeserving" however you slice it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 10
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Good question.

    A slippery slope, should the NHS treat rugby players or rock climbers ?
     
  12. I've just had to delete my post as it's content was nearly identical, but had a much lower fog index value.:Angelic: Aimed, as it was, to our core audience.
    [​IMG]
    You need to think @finm and @chizel when posting on here!
     
    #12 AirCon, May 15, 2017
    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2017
  13. Or fat people?
    Or people from poor backgrounds eating a poor diet.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. I hadn't stated that I was headed anywhere, let alone down a slippery slope. My own leaning is that personal freedom trumps the cost of looking after numpties who insist upon putting themselves in harm's way.

    If folks want to lose their skin in a low speed spill, they should be free to do so. If they want to chase an odd-shaped ball around a field, without the benefit of safety equipment (or the ability to throw the ball in the direction they wish to travel on the field - what's all that about?), who am I to deny them? If people want to trade brain cells, motor function and short-term memory retention in a boxing ring, rock on. Personal freedom is the single most important issue as long as the point of the activity isn't to harm others.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Soldiers?
     
  16. Yes. You are free to be a soldier if you want to be, as a hobby, as long as no one else gets hurt.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. Absolutely agree but it was you who linked personal risk to the NHS.
    The answer is, as you say, when it doesn't harm others. However it isn't just the financial cost, what about the psychological effects upon those who have to literally pick up the pieces ?
     
  18. Was I supposed to ignore the cost to the NHS in my deliberations?

    You cannot live a life that does not hurt others in some fashion. People who pick up the mess of what other people do for fun are harmed by what they experience. What you gonna do?
     
  19. There was a thing on Swiss TV a few nights ago about some health insurance companies who are mooting the wearing of some bracelet or "wearable" 24/7 in order to get a reduced insurance premium. There is no NHS here, but compulsory health insurance. Now the companies are trying to reduce premiums for those who don't smoke, drink little and have a very healthy lifestyle. Sounds fair enough? Well, one assumes that in time all those who don't wear the bracelet will be paying a lot more for their insurance.

    Similarly, you can get reduced motor insurance premiums if you're prepared to have a "spy in the cab" ensuring that you don't exceed speed limits, etc. Same will apply in time: those who don't want them ("But what have you got to hide, Sir?") will end up paying bigger premiums.

    We will end up with a completely monitored society of robots, but people will still get ill. As Pete says, a very obvious slippery slope. Don't go there.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  20. Assaulting another person with the intent to harm them, e.g. by punching them in the face, is generally a criminal offence.

    But there are exceptions to this: for example a surgeon carrying out a procedure which is medically necessary would not be guilty of assault; and if the person on the receiving end consents, that would be a defence to a charge of assault. Volenti non fit injuria.

    But there are also exceptions to the exceptions. If victim V consented to being killed by defendant D, that consent would not be a good defence to murder, and the same would apply to serious injuries.

    Boxing is a tricky case. When V steps into the boxing ring, he implicitly consents to being punched, bruised and maybe cut by D - but not to being shot, stabbed or killed. If V suffers permanent harm, such as a major brain injury, did he consent to this? And even if he did consent, was such consent valid in law? And if not, does that make D guilty of an offence? Folk in the boxing world generally steer clear of the courts on this issue, no doubt fearing the outcome would not be to their liking, so the matter has never been really resolved.
     
Do Not Sell My Personal Information