So much gear up top , so little protection down below...

[CNF2002]

Because when you're older, your safety counts not just for yourself but also your family (wife, children, grandchildren).

Those guys cruising down the boulevard in swim trunks don't have a wife and baby waiting at home I bet.

[-Holiday]

people on this forum really are too hard on riders who choose not to wear full gear. in folly beach where im from, riders will be cruising down the beach strip wearing nothing but tennis shoes and shorts, no shirt no helmet no nothing. it is their personal choice, it has no effect on you. so tell me, why does everyone get so bent out of shape whenever someone wearing less than you think appropriate is mentioned?

my young age might be part of my reasoning, but there is nothing like riding down the beach strip with the wind in your hair and the sun on your back

does it really not effect you?

how do you think helmet laws came about? Because legislators are trying to protect the public form thier own stupidity. Most likely, also because of insurance companies. So, if you're one that is worried about even more goverment legislation, why not use some common sense of your own , and try to limit the risk of injury to yourself?
When you're driving down the street, and you wreck with no gear, then make an inisurance claim for your injuries, do you think that effects others?
Yes it does. Insurance rates go up. Who is more of a risk to insure, someone wearing a helmet, or someone in a speedo?

So yes, some other motorcyclist riding down the street with no gear does effect me, and everyone here. They make legislators open an eye to our actions, and they raise our insurance rates. The only way to proove to me this is to untrue is to proove to me that riders who ride with no gear do not cost more to repair when they get hurt, otherwise, there really is no arguing with the fact that people who ride with no gear DO effect everyone else.

[Shiv]

But it does have an effect on me.

The person has a greater chance of dying. Public out cry rises. Motorcycles get restricted/banned.


How is that NOT affecting me?

It's a place where many people are free to post their own opinions about anything.

Isn't it beautiful? Just the way it should be.

[The Grinch]

But if someone is riding down the freeway doing the speed limit but wearing nothing but a speedo, how on earth does that affect me or my children (nausea doesn't count!)?

There are probably no direct physical affect to your (or your children) from someone riding without gear. There are, however, indirect effects, some of which are:

* Higher insurance rates for other motorcyclists due to additional medical care required for people who crash without gear. Insurance is a business governed by statistics. When I apply for a policy, the fact that I always wear gear doesn't factor into the cost of my policy, but the overall cost of paying claims to all motorcyclists does, and this is affected by people who don't wear gear because they typically have more injuries, which tend to be more severe.

* Bad publicity. The public already thinks motorcycles are death traps and seeing people riding around without safety gear only intensifies their feelings. These people, in turn, call for more restrictions on cyclists. The people who make the laws read the paper and watch the news too, and when they see things like the recent spate of deaths at Daytona Bike Week, they can't fail to notice.

To me, it just seems ludicrous that someone would choose not to take advantage of safety gear, whether in motorcycling or in any other pursuit. Do you not wear eye protection when welding or grinding because it impedes your view or "freedom"? Do you remove the anti-kickback mechanism from your chainsaw because you're an experienced woodsman and "don't need it"?

[-Holiday]

But if someone is riding down the freeway doing the speed limit but wearing nothing but a speedo, how on earth does that affect me or my children (nausea doesn't count!)?

There are probably no direct physical affect to your (or your children) from someone riding without gear. There are, however, indirect effects, some of which are:

* Higher insurance rates for other motorcyclists due to additional medical care required for people who crash without gear. Insurance is a business governed by statistics. When I apply for a policy, the fact that I always wear gear doesn't factor into the cost of my policy, but the overall cost of paying claims to all motorcyclists does, and this is affected by people who don't wear gear because they typically have more injuries, which tend to be more severe.

* Bad publicity. The public already thinks motorcycles are death traps and seeing people riding around without safety gear only intensifies their feelings. These people, in turn, call for more restrictions on cyclists. The people who make the laws read the paper and watch the news too, and when they see things like the recent spate of deaths at Daytona Bike Week, they can't fail to notice.

To me, it just seems ludicrous that someone would choose not to take advantage of safety gear, whether in motorcycling or in any other pursuit. Do you not wear eye protection when welding or grinding because it impedes your view or "freedom"? Do you remove the anti-kickback mechanism from your chainsaw because you're an experienced woodsman and "don't need it"?

nice! you worded that much better then I did.

[blues2cruise]

I am reminded of a commercial from a few years ago where there were two young children wearing lifevests. They were alone, floating adrift in a rowboat. The parent had not bothered to wear a lifevest and had drowned leaving his two children alone drifting in the boat.

It's only my ,but anyone who is a parent has a responsibility to keep themselves safe for their children. Minimizing risk by wearing the right gear can help towards your kids having a parent who isn't broken or head injured, and it can help you to be around to see you kids grow up.

If someone chooses not to wear a helmet, I sure hope it's someone who does not have young children around. They deserve better.

[dr_bar]

I can see insurance companies eventually not paying out on personal injury claims for those not wearing gear. Would they be in their rights to do so??? I don't know.

[dieziege]

I am reminded of a commercial from a few years ago where there were two young children wearing lifevests. They were alone, floating adrift in a rowboat. The parent had not bothered to wear a lifevest and had drowned leaving his two children alone drifting in the boat.

It's only my ,but anyone who is a parent has a responsibility to keep themselves safe for their children. Minimizing risk by wearing the right gear can help towards your kids having a parent who isn't broken or head injured, and it can help you to be around to see you kids grow up.

If someone chooses not to wear a helmet, I sure hope it's someone who does not have young children around. They deserve better.

Yes, the problem with Darwin is that he fails as soon as the buggers have bred. Unless they take their kids with them of course.....

[CNF2002]

Unless they have a personal negligence exemption, I dont think so. They may start drawing up bike contracts that exempt riders not wearing proper gear, but then you have to define proper gear specifically, or try to prove that the gear would have protected the rider sufficiently for it to be considered negligent not to be wearing it.

Sounds like they'd spend more on lawyers fighting to avoid paying.

[dr_bar]

Yes, the problem with Darwin is that he fails as soon as the buggers have bred. Unless they take their kids with them of course.....