Friday, December 19, 2014

$40 000 and a very Merry Christmas!



A couple of share milkers were robbed of $40k by numpties because they dared to ride their chosen vehicles without bending their knee to an idiot bureaucratic regulation, and wearing an approved  hat.

Do you think they will be as officious in pursuing a heavily tattooed male Maori in sand dunes during the holidays, I don't think so.

You see it is so much easier to target a couple of hard working taxpayers who are tied to an address by their chosen work and have easily accessed money even if it just increases their overdraft.

Will it prevent the next little baby from heading off to Starship with unimaginable head and body injuries, nope, but that is different.

Not all of the deaths from ATV incidents are actually head injuries , and not all are "farmers" but just as with the current nonsense around alcohol, bars and licencees the most convenient target is a couple of rebellious share milkers.

Many die from crush injuries, exsanguination  and organ trauma everyday in cars yet no-one is yet suggesting all occupants of motor vehicles wear helmets,  that is assuredly "YET".

From the statistics on ATV deaths, remove those involved in recreation, those under the influence of substances that impinge ability, the inexperienced, misuse, overloading, the gormless and the inherently stupid and the absurdity of placing a bit of plastic on a scone soon becomes apparent.

Force a pedestrian to wear a bit of plastic when on a walk might reduce damage when smashed by a vehicle while crossing the street but it will matter little when the poor bastard bleeds out from a ruptured spleen that brain damage was reduced.

Making a section of the citizenry wear a bit of plastic will,  with an arguable benefit in some accidents be seen as of great benefit by idiots with precious little understanding, while such arrant nonsense will have a totally ignored unintended consequence of creating a greater sense of mythical protection leading to greater risk taking.

What next, force the aged on mobility scooters to wear body armour as worn by bull riders at the Rodeo and full face crash helmets to protect them in a roll over, or am I talking nonsense as a dead pensioner is one less cost to the health services.

Then there are Police fire and ambulance personal wearing totally inappropriate protection while travelling at raised speeds to an incident, sort of the faster you go the bigger the mess if you like.

Heard one ignoramus on the wireless the other day bemoaning the cost to the taxpayers when another arrogant farmer ends up in hospital, the total tosspot clearly has no concept those sharemilkers are paying seriously higher ACC Levies that fund their care, rehabilitation and loss of income while muppet white noise on the wireless will go skiing and the bloody taxpaying sharemilkers will pick up the tab for his broken leg, medivac and income protection  that he in all likely-hood contributed bugger all, if anything, towards.

30 comments:

JC said...

Eh? Next you'll be telling me that Lycra doesn't create a force field around a cyclist when he jumps the lights.

JC

gravedodger said...

You mean it doesn't, JC.

pdm said...

JC everyone knows that wearing Lycra allows cyclists to do anything - even riding the wrong way around roundabouts, no hands and in the dark without lights and helmetless.

They are a dime a dozen in Hastings and Havelock North.

Chris Bird said...

This fine is totally ridiculous when considering the possibility of head injury to the workers.
Sure they had been warned more than once, but WHY does some Government bureaucrat who would never have produced any overseas earnings which help keep this country in the lifestyle we have been enjoying be able to dictate to all riders of ATV's that they will wear a helmet when as you rightly point out, GD, that the majority of injuries are not head related. In my mind it is only because some Coroner in his wisdom has said that these should be worn because of deaths on these machines, with many injuries and deaths caused by riders who are not even farmers.
I think it is time that all farmers refuse to wear helmets, and then lets see the court system inundated with these innocent people just going about their work.

Chris Bird said...

Perhaps we all need to take our ATVs into every town and city in the land and cause some traffic chaos.

Edward the Confessor said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Frank Davis said...

go Chris Bird

I am all for that and will cheerfully (and helmetlessly) ride my quad bike into town to protest this nanny state bullshit , just give me a time and place

Noel said...

Costs 70,000 for the intensive care bed alone. Most accept the wearing of helmets on a construction site regardless if the crane is overhead or not.On many sites the risk is lower than riding an ATV.

gravedodger said...

Noel I am well aware of what you say but my focus is how many working for income farmers and their workers actually die from preventable head injuries resulting from ATV accidents.
My efforts searching have come up with a large blank so far but my limited knowledge around modern farming practice and as a first response volunteer have me seriously questioning the apparent myths around what the bureaucracy will achieve by financially assaulting those two rebellious dairy farm operators and their risk exposure to an actual head injury while operating an ATV.
Not forgetting Michael Schumacher was wearing a helmet.

Noel said...

A quarter of all ATV accidents are heard injuries. Have had a son recently stomped on the head after been king hit so I did some investigation into costs. It was something like 500,000 of the taxpayer purse after lengthy rehabilitation.
40,000 against 500,000. Maybe there should be more deaths?

gravedodger said...

Noel you clearly have more stats than I have accessed, can you identify any figures on genuine farming as base income victims as opposed to the many others who come to grief with an ATV.

Howard said...

"can you identify any figures on genuine farming as base income victims as opposed to the many others who come to grief with an ATV."

That's relevant why? Are you saying courier motorcycle riders shouldn't have to wear helmets either?

gravedodger said...

Not at all Howard as the courier is working in Traffic at all times and a full helmet is reasonably appropriate whereas a farmer using the ATV in often spasmodic use patterns is coping with sun rain wind and dust, communicating with animals, dogs in particular, and other workers where the idiot skidlid that satisfies the bureaucratic numpty is only seen as a total nonsense by many of those at the coal face.
Just as it is entirely appropriate for a recreational rider taking greater risks with terrain and ground conditions to wear body armour, boots, leg protectors gloves along with the full face helmet.
Most farmers without a serious death wish and or already brain damaged are taking extraordinary care already in their workplace environment in multiple ways around workplace safety.

The Helmet requirement around ATV use has many stupid aspects that results in widespread disregard and disrespect as to effective safety procedures.
I take far greater apparent risks in the eyes of an ignorant idiot with my ride on lawn mower than I ever do with the ancient ATV I use as a wheelbarrow yet the bureaucratic numpty sees a way to assault my bank balance around the ATV use.

Noel said...

An example from only one DHB,

" An increase in ATV injuries year-on-year within the Waikato area was found. A large number of head injuries were found. Helmet compliance was low. Our results display a 42% rise in admission incidence from 2009 to 2010, resulting in increased hospital bed occupancy. If the current trend of a growing number of quad bike accidents was to continue, this could amount to a cost of NZ$1 467 344 in 2012 from ATV injuries in Waikato hospital alone."

Howard said...

OK then Gravedodger, where is your evidence that farmers are so concerned with their and their workers' wellbeing and so skilled that their rate of quad-bike mishaps is demonstrably lower than the general population? So low in fact that they shouldn't be subject to the laws everyone is is required to comply with? You assert it as fact, so you must have the numbers at hand. Thanks!

gravedodger said...

Howard you are clearly farting and typing contemporaneously and the resulting mix is offensive.

Can you point to where I suggested rapacious and uncaring farmers are preventing employees from wearing helmets when operating quadbikes.

Nearly all farmers I am in contact with, have serious consequences for employees who fail to comply with the current nonsensical law.

Equally many employees find the bureaucratic interference with their personal safety attitudes meaningless, bad and often unenforceable as H&S Law.
Compliance is much more likely for reasons of ongoing employment security rather than the threat of some pimply faced neurotic instituting judicial consequences in justification of their unproductive and antagonising efforts at H&S

Now perhaps you could measure your comments to your clear and total lack of knowledge of the germane points in the thread of this post then again I fear your ignorance of the core issues is in plain sight.

If you feel so strongly then pray tell us how many holiday makers enjoying sand dunes and beaches using many and varied appliances with widely varying degrees of potential personal danger with little or no protection do you think will end up in the courts or a morgue over the next five weeks.
I have a case of very nice Pinot Noir says bugger all in court but many, far too many, in ED or the morgue, some from the repercussions of 'Sods Law' but most from poor choices and decision making .

I recall the equally idiotic laws around children riding on tractors where the only prosecutions I can remember were of poor bastards already grieving being charged under that widely ignored law and then very few in number.

You see I have this old fashioned mindset that personal responsibility should be the monitoring pressure on our choices and that is where welfare, compulsion in law and abrogation of personal rights will always collide with my views on such inane bureaucratic impositions.

Perhaps if you choose to involve yourself further in this discussion could you possibly begin with a short para on your experience, abilities and skill level around ATVs, terrain and uses.

Oh and in response to your opening sentence It would be almost a drop dead certainty that those using ATVs for farm operations would be buried by the numbers of incompetents attempting a dance of death as casual and or recreational users of such vehicles on hours in the saddle comparisons.
Sort of similar to those weekend beavers collecting firewood vs professionals and chainsaw injuries if you like.

Noel said...

Perhaps this will help?
Of all quad bike injuries in the last recording year nearly 60 per cent occurred on farms.
Suggests the majority are farm related?

Howard said...

Oh dear, it appears Gravedodger has been owned by the facts (after stridently abusing everyone in sight). A bit humiliating, but a back down is no doubt pending....

"You see I have this old fashioned mindset that personal responsibility should be the monitoring pressure on our choices"

So you don't like seat belt laws either then. Willing to see people die needlessly in order to have your "mindset" imposed on the rest of us. Classic tory.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Noel, you are cherry picking and young Howie will soon earn himself a holiday.

First, you'd better find out whether more than 60% of quad bikes are owned by farmers. If the own and operate 90% of these machines (and I suspect they might) then their track record would be very good.

Second, why don't you get the figures for head injuries alone as these re the only ones which might be affected by use of a helmet.

Howard said...

The fact that farmers use quad-bikes more than anyone else in no way suggests they should be exempt from requirements to wear helmets. It indicates enforcement in the workplace is important, however. Also, Noel has already said a quarter of injuries involving quad bikes are head injuries. Keep going though, this is fun.

gravedodger said...

I note Howard declined to give out any info on a possible basis for his assertions from his acquired life skills, no surprises there. I have formed an impression he rides a securely attached desk and I may well contribute to his earnings involuntarily while his output produces no actual financial benefit for the nation, only for Howard.

I wonder if the question of blanket requirements for users of ATVs without any reference to speeds or activity risk issues will be addressed by such a fun loving idjit.

I mean to say what possible risk factor exists for a shepherd idling behind a mob of sheep on a well formed track at say 3kph on a stinking hot day with no protection from sunshine.
And before you start about a roof/rollover protection you might like to research the very significant risks from head/body strike for the operator in such upsets of machines so equipped.
I guess in your Mary Poppins world Howie, a parasol would be required equipment.

Further Info Howie a delivery van driver can be exempt from seat belt laws if stopping often and not exceeding a low speed. So clearly being taken out by a speeding evader or the chasing cop is not a problem as he will have the piece of paper for protection .
Bit like JC's Lycra above.
Sikhs have widespread exemption from helmet laws.
On payment of a 27.50 fee anyone may apply for exemption to many laws around traffic safety on medical, belief and other pertinent matters

I wonder what protection is gained from a lazy 20 a spare five a two dollar coin and a fifty cent piece in a cash drawer at LTNZ in affording an alternative safety device for a motor scooter rider with an expensive hairdo but that is way beyond my understanding
I have already accepted prima facie Noels claim of head injury ratios but without any stats on activity/use/situation such a figure may be of little value in the discussion of the effectiveness/correctness of the current widely disrespected law as regards "farmers" ATV use.

Btw is it impertinent or disrespectful to remind Howard that Phillip Hughes was wearing an approved helmet?

Noel said...

It obvious we aint going to change your mind.
In closing may I offer this anecdote.
Many years ago the company I worked for was advocating the compulsory wearing of safety glasses in all areas of the plant.
Compliance was small.
For me after having mill scale removed from one eye where it had lodged two years earlier for me it was a no brainer.
When I left the company 25 years later every one was wearing safety glasses.
I don't and have never owned a quad bike but if I did, based on the research I have sighted I would wear a helmet every time I rode it.

gravedodger said...

@ Noel thankyou for your reasoned dialogue, you have background that suggests rational position taking and some very pertinent points.

It is the one size fits all inspite of many occasions when the helmet requirement is onerous and in a risk sense totally inappropriate, as are some of the approved equipment specs.

Have a great Christmas.

Howard said...

"Btw is it impertinent or disrespectful to remind Howard that Phillip Hughes was wearing an approved helmet?"

Asinine possibly. Irrelevant, certainly.

"I wonder if the question of blanket requirements for users of ATVs without any reference to speeds or activity risk issues will be addressed by such a fun loving idjit."

You're suggesting a set of regulations spectacular in their complexity. A universal rule based on the overall level of risk is a better way to go.

"I mean to say what possible risk factor exists for a shepherd idling behind a mob of sheep on a well formed track at say 3kph on a stinking hot day with no protection from sunshine."

And what possible risk factor is there for a motorcyclist idling in a traffic jam on a well-formed motorway blah blah.

Are you for real?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Keep digging, young Howie.

So only one quarter of the 60% of accidents involved head injuries?

And you want everyone to wear helmets, all the time, off the road?

You're kidding, aren't you?

This is an issue for Federated Farmers to take up with the relevant ministers.

Howard said...

"So only one quarter of the 60% of accidents involved head injuries?"

No, that is incorrect.

Let me explain. Head injuries are serious (I think you know that) and occur in a quarter of quad bike accidents. Helmets are a cheap way of preventing head injuries. Some individuals are for some reason very bad at assessing risk and how to prevent it and so can't figure out that wearing a helmet is a good way of avoiding serious head injuries at little cost. These individuals cost the health system and taxpayers large sums of money, and ruin their lives in the process. A good way to prevent these costs is to require helmets to be worn. Farmers make up a large proportion of quad bike users and there is no evidence they are more skilled or less likely to crash, and there is no evidence of awful inconvenience for them in putting a helmet on, Therefore there is no case to exempt them from the law. Simple isn't it?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Young Howie, you are pushing shit uphill.

Do you have some figures which show agricultural quad bike accidents involve a rate of head injuries different from the total number of accidents?

Howard said...

"Do you have some figures which show agricultural quad bike accidents involve a rate of head injuries different from the total number of accidents?"

That would not be required in order for the case for mandated helmet use on quad-bikes to be made. Can you please provide some figures which indicate farmers and farm workers suffer substantially lower rates of head injuries than other quad bike users? The onus is on you to prove they should be exempt, as that is what you are stridently advocating. Thanks!

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Young Howie

Thank you for confirming you are full of shit.

Howard said...

So far you have not come up with a single cogent argument or indeed data or facts, relying instead on asking what you think are piercing, but which are actually irrelevant questions. You have now resorted to outright empty abuse. I win, you lose.

Have a great Christmas by the way, love your work.