I didn't say I wanted to do it, but I will argue the right to choose to do it.

Two comments here. When I was young and had the big red S on my chest I rode with no helmet, blue jeans, tennie runners, etc., until the commanding officer put out the word that safety gear at all times would be used. I bought the helmet, heavy leather pants, gloves and groused about the expense until a few months later when a little old lady (really) ran a stop sign and I hit her broadside. No serious injury to me, the bike was in worse shape. If you can't afford to be safe, don't ride. AARRRRGHHH! I can hear the blood boiling in a thousand riders and thoughts that (it is my life and if I want to risk it I can). Well, when a small rock hits you in the eye because of no shield and you-in your instant pain, lose control for half a second during which time you run a cross-walk, veer across the center line, or go through a light and cause someone else injury, it is more than you that suffers. All the gear all the time. One reason why we have taken so long to put our RTW together is making sure we have the funds to not only enjoy the trip, but also to make sure we can maintain equipment, pay medical bills, and be as safe as we can throughout the trip.

Second comment. For Quastdog and the others who are looking for reading--just drop me a line and your address and preferred reading. I have something like 3000 paperbacks that for the most part gather dust. I will gladly and happily mail you a few of them to anywhere in the world. Not much thanks for all the help I have received from this forum, but it is a gesture for those like me who can't even get onto a bus without a book.

You dont want to do it? Why bother then?

Why not argue something useful like getting diesel spillages stopped etc? Why argue for something vacuous?

Diesel spills.
Now they are dangerous to motorbikes and motorcyclists need protecting from them.
So let's ban motorbikes. Problem solved.

We have a fundamental right for us to choose the level of risk we want to expose ourselves to. The logical conclusion to allowing others to make that decision for us is that slowly our freedom to make choices will be eroded from us.
At the moment we have a law in many countries that we must wear helmets. Most sensible motorcyclists would go further than that and advocate protective clothing, gloves and boots as well. That's how they dress to address the level of risk they are prepared to take.
But a natural progression to the ever increasing legislation regarding our health and safety might well be a law that says we must wear protective clothing. Then leg protectors, then airbags. Where will it end?

The right to choose for ourselves what our level of freedom should be is worth fighting for now, not when it's too late and we no longer have any.

The fight to stop diesel spills is also worth fighting for. And guess what? I do that as well.

Point taken about wearing eye protection. There is a law in the states for just that very good reason.

One of my favorite quotes is from General Patton..."Take calculated risks. That is quite different from being rash"...

travel reading
 

Just my point of view of course , but if I wanted to be reading so many books I might a s well stay at home and do so , save hauling all that paper around. Now , it is not that I consider myself an illiterate slob ,I've taken enough of my share of Eng.lit . courses .If I am travelling I have plenty other stuff going on to keep my mind occupied and entertained . I understand that much of this desire to read English books on the road is to feed a certain level of homesickness, well okay go to it . If you must read than do as Pat sugests and read the more current local stuff to add to your understanding of the forces and events moving affairs in the region you visit. As for me , after a day of touring and exploring I just can't see me getting excited about re-reading some old books I might have in the past. Por ejemplo, a long time ago I read one of these Tropic of... by Miller and now the only thing I can remember from it is that the main character,as a kid , roasted chippies (chipmunks ?) , that the he had some kind of courier job in a dismal office setting circa 1914 and that he spent a lot of time chasing a certain woman.
Apparently it was autobiographical ?? With that much left in the memory banks it is not much incentive to bother spending all the time needed to reread .Rather be out there taking in the local colour, look at the stars, the natural real world.
As for cheap- I consider myself frugal and practical . Run tires until the wearbars show or are about to , then replace them pronto with whatever is available at best price , regular maintenance but no frilly pointless accessorizing.After decades of riding in sturdy workboots, leather jacket, sometimes ditto pants , jean jacket in hot weather , I have only this past summer gotten around to buying a pair of bona fide riding boots ( nice comfy!) and padded mesh jacket-- from a discount dealer.

No offence meant, Harleyrider, but there is somebody for everyone at home, right?

Who would have to care for a mashed knee or cracked skull, or worse, paralysed legs? So it is not only a question of safety to other road users. We all owe ourselves this little bit, and definitely, a lot more to those at home who will be the first real sufferers if we exercise our "rights"! If asked, I'm sure they'll have one answer to the question of safety.

I, me, myself and my rights is fine if it really does not impact anybody else in any way, but on this issue, well, it does. My take on this, and like I said, no offence meant.

Ride safe!

So all the Indians riding without helmets are proving they are predisposed by their genes to be better moto riders than the rest of us? Is that what you're saying?

I'm happy to read most folk on here are drawing the line on safety gear...and hopefully that point is hammered home at HUBB meetings.

BUT I do agree with Harley rider...let the rider choose and do so smartly instead of having it dictated by government. Darwin will sort this stuff out...and I'm all for cleaning the gene pool QUICKLY.

BVut Harley rider, what is your view on taxpayer money paid for ambulatory/hospital costs to those that ride without helmets?

There's no easy answer to this one. Here in the UK we are lucky enough to have a national health service which most of us pay into. Therefore once in the system we have a right to rely on it in a time of need, whether it be through accident or illness.
There is a very good argument to say you should contribute to the costs of your care if you have contributed to your injury or illness by your own negligence or stupidity.
However where do you draw the line. Lets say today we agree that if a motorcycle rider is pursued for costs relating to injuries for not wearing a helmet and car drivers for not wearing a seatbelt. Who's to say that line won't be moved tomorrow for not wearing full body armour or next month for actually riding a motorcycle.

So on balance I would say it is no more undesirable to spend taxpayers on treating a motorcycle crash victim than it is on treating victims of smoking related illnesses.

It's not in doubt that wearing good protective clothing is a good thing and I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone should ride without it. But it should be our right to choose to wear it and to choose the level of risk that we are prepared to take. Once legislation determines that level of risk for us the screw can get tightened and logically continuing down that path will lead to a banning of all unnecessary activities that are deemed to be too dangerous.

Yes I agree (how is it possible) with both sides of this discussion. Yes, we should ride with the equipment to keep us safe and protect ourselves as well as hopefully prevent an accident with another vehicle. NO! I do not want the government to dictate my choice. I ride with the gear because I have been hurt when not using it. I want to be as safe as I can. Mentioning making cigarette smokers pay for the tax supported medical is a reality in most states already. The price of cigarettes has gone up 5000% in 30 years and everytime the governor decides the budget is slipping, taxing the cigarette smokers and beer drinkers is a safe bet, because after all, according to the popular view, beer drinkers cause accidents and smokers get cancer, so raise the price of smokes to 6 bucks a pack and beer to 1.75 a can. In Oregon, they call it a sin tax. I doubt that the increase in taxes actually goes to paying for the ambulances and treatment, but that is the argument. Bottom line is simpler: if you ride without adequate protection, don't expect sympathy when inury could have been prevented with a full-face helmet, stout boots, and at a minimum, chaps. If you choose to skydive without a backup chute, good luck when the main canopy fails to open. Some laws are for our own protection. Some laws are to garner funds or prevent funds from being spent due to our carelessness, neglect, or lack of understanding. Some laws, however, are made to line the pockets of a favored company whose headquarters are in a congresspersons district. to hell with the laws, common sense rules.

I read a lot. No crime in that. I also don't sell my paperbacks because in Korea, they are like gold, so over the last decade, I have collected a bunch of them. On any trip, in the evening I enjoy sitting with a good book, a cup of coffee, and some music. I expect that on the RTW I will buy a book here, another there, and when finished, give them to another rider, drop them in a bar where ex-pats congregate, or try to trade them off. To me, they are an essential of life, not a luxury. I also carry a bottle of licorice concentrate that I realy don't need, but if life is not going to be pleasant on the road, why go? I travel for fun, joy, and sightseeing-not to set records, not to see how much I can endure, and certainly not to live in a state of deprivation. The good life is traveling to other countries at a snail's pace, stopping in the evening where camping is safe or a cheap hotel, walking around the villages, eating strange food and watching life slowly close happily around me. Not reading would detract from all of that. I do not lug bunches of paper around. just a few well chosen books or in desparation, the lid from a cereal box (do you know that a box of wheaties has 1129 letters and 54 numbers on it). If someone else has a different viewpoint that is fine, but please do not condemn me for what I consider a necessity just because it is not your viewpoint.

Who is the more deserving patient?
 

It's an age old form of argument, often used by politicians to justify some tax increase or change in law or similar (and it is based on setting one part of a society/town/city against another part, albeit temporarily while the legislation, or whatever, is passed).

So who is the most deserving of medical treatment? :-

An obese person with a very unhealthy life style who lives on state provided aid.
A victim of work-related Asbestosis (or a dozen other industrial afflictions) who has never been out of work and has paid taxes throughout their working life.
A heavy drinker with a liver problem.
A heavy smoker with lung cancer.
A motor vehicle accident victim.
A motor vehicle accident perpetrator.
A skiier with a broken leg.
A mountaineer with a broken head.
A Pamplona bull-runner who has been gored.
A DIYer who has electrocuted themselves while working on their home wiring.
A soldier returned from active duty in Iraq with battle wounds.
A hill-walker with hypothermia, who went out in adverse weather.
Etc etc

Hopefully this won't occur:-
"There are 12 instances shown here, but we can treat only 11 today."

The word "victim" is interesting in itself.

There is no such thing as an accident: In the UK there is very little "recognition" given to the word accident nowadays - someone has to be at fault.

What we forget.
 

We sometimes forget about the few travelers we meet on the road, a local from within the country, or the fewer cross-border travelers. We talk a few of those we see on 20 year old bikes, realize they've 'run what they've brung', or in other words, that's all they got! For some, just having a little bit....a little of the stuff we got...the boots, the suits, the helmets, body armor, gloves, special expedition clothing... how odd it must be for them to meet people with intercom systems, or having issues with their heated garments?

It sometimes applies to the folks real close to home.

What's that saying, about giving us the strength to suffer through such torments, to accept them for who they are???

Two threads in one
 

There seem to be two threads developing here, and I'm interested in both, so I'll comment on both here.

On what gear to wear, I will always offer advice if I see someone I think needs it. I recently ended a contract working with a young lady who commuted on a scooter. In the summer she went without gloves in the hot weather. I asked her who she was closest to, and if he would happily wipe her when she used the toilet, because if she stepped off without gloves and ended up with bandaged hands, he'd need to. Within the week she had bought a pair of lightweight gloves.

Would I therefore support a law requiring all motorcyclists (and cyclists) to wear approved gloves? No. If the government get involved they won't require us to wear gloves, they will merely ban those nasty, dangerous motorcycles for all. On this site we are at risk already; for what we pay for our motorcycles we could buy a small car, which is good enough for the rest of the population. The effort we put into planning our trips is excessive, especially when one considers how cheaply we could buy a package to the same resort as everyone else. "Individual" is a dirty word to government, and failure to conform is almost dissent to the average (most are very average; I've worked with too many) civil "servant".

[End of polital rant, this is not the place and I'll try to avoid any more for a while].

On reading, I read lots of travel books for leisure. I have good and valid personal reasons why I cannot travel as I would wish at present (No 1 is, if you don't want to raise your children, don't have them), so I am reading to remind myself what I will be doing when the youngest can be left for an extended period. On the road I would not want to take many books (perhaps guide books, but no more), but I would read local guides at night in my cheap hotel or tent. Others may prefer to read of other travellers' experiences, or other forms of literature because good local fiction can tell you more about a country than every guide book ever published. I'd recommend Anna Karenina for St Petersburg, Midnights Children for India, Proust for France (if you have the time!) and, for non Brits, Julian Barnes for England.