Ban riding in shorts and flip flops? To save a potential 1.9 mil per every one that crashes? What's the downside of not doing it? KSI = killed or seriously injured incident. The skin is the body's largest organ. Losing just 30% of it can kill.
I don't suppose it is worthwhile saying that the cost per casualty is distressingly high but that the cost per ride ridden in non-protective clothing is much lower? And I suppose there's no point in suggesting that the cost to the taxpayer can be driven down even further by banning motorcycles all together? OK. I agree that riding without proper gear is inadvisable. My personal opinion is that people who ride habitually without protective gear will likely weed themselves out of the gene pool and whilst that is good news for the future of the species, it is tragic on a per case basis. There are arguments in favour of compulsory use of safety gear for motorcyclists that have merit. In the end though, every freedom taken is one that will never be gotten back whilst our current civilisation exists. I rue the loss of almost every single one of them. You might argue that safety and healthcare economics trump freedom in this case, but that will be because you generally favour safety over freedom. You won't persuade those for whom the reverse is true. Just because you think that it is common sense to wear protective gear (it is), you believe that any law enforcing such common sense is justifiable and presents no societal difficulties. I disagree and believe that to be a very scary road indeed, with no gear that can protect you there.
I have no interest in becoming a racer at all. If only you would have developed your obvious talent for sarcasm, you could have become a world class comedian....
I'm afraid I am going to have to see the workings... They have probably costed the whole infrastructure into that and if the casualties were double the cost would be half
Correct on both counts. It's not worthwhile and there's no point. Good. You rue the loss of being able to drive legally without wearing a seat belt? If you don't rue the loss of any of them and accept one is good and right, then your argument falls flat. Please don't attribute your assumptions about what I favour to me. It's more about personal responsibility to society than economics. Yes, we all have things that we don't like to do but we have to for the common good. There you go again, putting words in my mouth. I don't believe it presents no societal difficulties, I just happen to think that for the case in question, anybody willing to risk, almost guaranteed, life threatening injuries for such a small thing is a cretin who probably shouldn't be allowed a knife and fork, let alone freedom to wield a potentially lethal motorbike.
We differ in where we sit on the issue of personal liberties, fair enough but I would like to point out that I do not regret legislation aimed at protecting third parties. Thus, whilst it is sensible 99.99% of the time to be wearing a seat belt, the law that is meant to enforce this is a loss of freedom, apart from anything else. It may make most people safer, most of the time but it is a law that restricts a personal freedom of an adult. Compare this to a law which states that vehicles must be fit for purpose and safe to drive - this reflects not a restriction of personal freedom but a duty of care to third parties. I would hate for anyone to conflate the two very different ideas here. Nevertheless, every single loss of personal freedom is regrettable, not withstanding the laudable idea behind restricting it. You don't see that, I know. I understand that you are qualified to call people cretins whom you do not feel that they share your point of view and appreciate your expert opinion but I still feel that you are missing the point of my argument. And what concerns me most is how far you would wish to go in enforcing your vision of what individuals must do to meet their societal "responsibilities". Having an opinion on the issue is one thing but employing insulting language that appears to be an attempt to bully folk to your personal point of view, is troubling. And maybe a little funny, too.
The countries with warm climates, where people ride motorcycles need to start confiscating the knives & forks from the thousands of cretins immediately!
Hands up everyone who's ridden with knife and fork in their hand! Kindly put down the knife and fork before raising you hand. Safety first!
And as we know, the fire brigade is at best 30% productive including training. They all are off doing second jobs or rescuing cats and makes jokes about their hoses.
When I get into an argument with Loz I often win , but I'm afraid it is clear that you will only loose
Tell that to the whole of Europe who ride in them all the time. It’s not like seat belts: they are built in. It’s not like helmets: not many left who ride that never had one when they started. It’s more like speed limiters on every vehicle. GPS controlled speed on every vehicle.
If an innocent newborn can't get adequate treatment in a SCBU (or insert other 'worthy' cause) because another person has 'spent' a huge sum of public money on himself via his stupid and selfish actions, that's not protecting third parties. The trouble is that the 'cretins' care nothing for third parties. Why should society not seek to eliminate that? Do you think the loss of being free to get drunk and then drive is regrettable? There you go again. I'm not calling the people who don't share the same point of view as me 'cretins'. I'm calling people cretins who have no sense of social responsibility. e.g. people who drink-drive, people who use phones while driving etc. Hardly bullying to 'win' a point in an argument.
The law which makes it compulsory for new vehicles to be fitted with seat belts is, in my opinion, justified - because it gives every user the option of choosing to wear them. The law making it compulsory for users to wear those seat belts is, in my opinion, much harder to justify - because it removes from users the option of choice. In principle, compulsion is well justified where it preserves or extends options, but not where it restricts or abolishes them. But feel free to disagree.
And look what the EU is seeking to do to correct that. eg. clothing PPE laws in France, probably soon to be rolled out to others. Is the issue here for the dissenters actually a Leave/Remain issue underneath? It really shouldn't be. When you look at most people who ride without PPE, it's not really that they are choosing not to - they simply can't (for whatever reason) justify the expense/perceived 'hassle' of kitting up. I bet every single person who has a crash, where wearing PPE could have saved them a life-changing injury, regrets not having worn it. That is the crux of the matter that is unavoidable that people are not commenting on because they know it's true and that single fact defeats their argument.
Your morality superiority and contempt is fragrant. "If an innocent newborn can't get adequate treatment in a SCBU (or insert other 'worthy' cause) because another person has 'spent' a huge sum of public money on himself via his" ... motorcycling/mountain climbing/hang-gliding/rugby/smoking/poor choice of diet/lack of exercise/refusal to wrap himself in cotton wool at all times/etc , "that's not protecting third parties". If another person insists upon spending his money on holidays/trinkets/posh housing/cars/motorcycles/Netflix instead of donating his cash to hospitals, that's not protecting third parties either. See, I told you I was concerned about how deep the rabbit hole is you want us all to drop down. Oh, sorry for all those words, I hope there was room for them? "Cretins" - is that a legal term? Do they have similar rights to other folk or are they restricted in law to running around with knives and forks? "Do you think the loss of being free to get drunk and then drive is regrettable?" - um, you remember when I said that laws that protect the safety of third parties are ... oh, never mind. "There you go again. I'm not calling the people who don't share the same point of view as me 'cretins'. I'm calling people cretins who have no sense of social responsibility. e.g. people who drink-drive, people who use phones while driving etc. Hardly bullying to 'win' a point in an argument." You seem to have drifted off into the long grass here. I thought we'd agreed that laws protecting third parties are necessary? Obviously we disagree on where to draw the line - I think drink-driving laws are sensible, you think walking around in cotton-wool and not indulging in any dangerous activity is the minimum requirement ... can we meet in the middle somewhere? Say we only use my opinion?
The law is an ass - lawyers even more so. This world is in a hell of a state because lawyers got involved.
