4 ms·

The snark on this from ATGATT (all the gear, all the time) crowd is a bit much. I could imagine it would be frustrating for the concerned to be taking most of t

The snark on this from ATGATT (all the gear, all the time) crowd is a bit much. I could imagine it would be frustrating for the concerned to be taking most of the risk that someone looking badass takes, but getting none of the reflected glory. Riders ride for the pleasure of it, judging others for how they enjoy it is a bit much. This idea we get to be judgy and have anxieties about others taking risks, as though we have some responsibility for them is just wishful thinking. It makes the critic feel they are retaining some power in the face of a risk taker's badassery. Every time I read resentment of someone else taking risks, it's by someone who aspires to do the same thing and doesn't because their risk appetite isn't the same. Risk takers often seem powerful and sexy, and this offends those invested in compliance. The reason people hate on Harley riders is because they feel ashamed. We all die, but please, try to lay off those of us who choose to live a little before we do.

woah 5y ago
People hate on Harley riders because they are more into making a lot of noise than getting from A to B. The only risk most of them take is the risk of looking like a middle aged dentist compensating for something
ASalazarMX 5y ago
> Risk takers often seem powerful and sexy, and this offends those invested in compliance. Riding a purposefully noisy vehicle is not what risk taking looks like, it's more like a "Look at me! I exist!" cry for validation, and that's not powerful or sexy.
esyir 5y ago
Going into slightly darker places though, from A purely utilitarian point of view, I wonder how the math works out on cost benefit ratio here. Motorcyclists, especially non-helmet wearing ones, are a major source of viable organ donations. The increased organ supply, is an odd and morbid, if beneficial, externality of helmet law repeals[0]. The question is thus what's the balance between cost to society from the accidents (of which the biker takes most of the risk), the beneficial externality, and the restriction of the biker's ability to select his/her own risk tolerance? How does this compare to other such restrictions (seat belts, airbags). [0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/661256 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/661256

woah 5y ago

People hate on Harley riders because they are more into making a lot of noise than getting from A to B. The only risk most of them take is the risk of looking like a middle aged dentist compensating for something

ASalazarMX 5y ago

> Risk takers often seem powerful and sexy, and this offends those invested in compliance. Riding a purposefully noisy vehicle is not what risk taking looks like, it's more like a "Look at me! I exist!" cry for validation, and that's not powerful or sexy.

esyir 5y ago

Going into slightly darker places though, from A purely utilitarian point of view, I wonder how the math works out on cost benefit ratio here. Motorcyclists, especially non-helmet wearing ones, are a major source of viable organ donations. The increased organ supply, is an odd and morbid, if beneficial, externality of helmet law repeals[0]. The question is thus what's the balance between cost to society from the accidents (of which the biker takes most of the risk), the beneficial externality, and the restriction of the biker's ability to select his/her own risk tolerance? How does this compare to other such restrictions (seat belts, airbags). [0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/661256 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/661256