ATGATT rant | GTAMotorcycle.com

ATGATT rant

Morrissey

Morrissey

Well-known member
Forum Sponsor
So this ATGATT rant is a little different that the usual one. I honestly don't care if YOU ride in a full racing suit with boots and gloves or flip flops and a tanktop. My issue is what your passenger, specifically children are wearing on your bike. Yesterday as I was about to turn down the on ramp of the 401 to head home after work I saw a guy getting of the 401 on a blacked out V-rod wearing jeans and a basketball jersey and a full helmet. "None of my business" I thought. Then I noticed he had a young girl, barely old enough to reach the foot pegs strapped to him with a belt on the back of the bike. She was wearing a t-shirt and cotton shorts and what looked like velcro sandals!

I have zero problems if adults wear nothing for safety gear. It's their choice and they understand and accept the consequences if they have an accident. A child however does not understand the risks they are taking and rely on the adult to ensure their safety. I also have zero problems with children (provided they are big enough to reach the pegs and hold on) on bikes either, but putting a child on a motorcycle without proper riding gear should be considered child endangerment.

It's not like this guy was giving this little girl a ride around the block in a quiet, suburban neighbourhood at 50km/h. He took this little girl on the busiest highway in the country at the busiest time of day at 100km/h+. There is no excuse for her not having the proper gear.

I'm certain I've just opened a can of worms but honestly I couldn't keep silent about this one.
 
I hate ATTGATT threads but I agree with you
 
No passenger gets on my bike without a full face helmet, protective jacket (textile or leather), jeans, gloves and decent shoes. I am not interested in someone being all messed up when it was easily preventable.

My favourite was a female passenger, probably a teenager wearing a helmet, halter top, hot pants and flip flops. If something went wrong she has no hope. At least with boots and gloves you can try to slide on them to save some skin.
 
Last edited:
Morrissey said:
... A child however does not understand the risks they are taking and rely on THEIR PARENT to ensure their safety. ...
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you...

Assuming the operator was the child's parent... Not taking sides on this. My default position is that the parent knows best, and not really my business to poke my nose in there. I would and have operated differently.

I think this is less scary than the person who got 'U' on their child's birth certificate instead of 'M' or 'F'...
 
Motosocial this week. Rider was wearing full leather jacket, boots, jeans, etc. Passenger, she was wearing a tank top, shorts and sandals. If he was gonna take the risk, give her the jacket at least.
 
Agreed.
My passenger always has a full face helmet but the rest is optional ONLY IF im riding around to city roads (60 kms/hr roads and under) and no highway.
But if i hit the highway with a passenger, she has to have at least a proper jacket, no open toe shoes/sandals. Also no shorts.
 
Riceburner said:
Motosocial this week. Rider was wearing full leather jacket, boots, jeans, etc. Passenger, she was wearing a tank top, shorts and sandals. If he was gonna take the risk, give her the jacket at least.
Click to expand...

That's Motosocial though. They probably rode 0.7km to get there. The only reason guy had gear is because it was so retro and hip, freshly bought from the nearest boutique, but aged to look 40 years old. ;)

As for the original statement by OP, I fully agree. Bad parenting is evident in many more ways, however.

I also get my passengers to gear up, no matter the age.
 
DemonPig said:
That's Motosocial though. They probably rode 0.7km to get there. The only reason guy had gear is because it was so retro and hip, freshly bought from the nearest boutique, but aged to look 40 years old. ;)

As for the original statement by OP, I fully agree. Bad parenting is evident in many more ways, however.

I also get my passengers to gear up, no matter the age.
Click to expand...

Good point. Also, what if the guy was doing a proper ride out of the city before coming to pick up his passenger who lives down town near the event?

Few weeks back me and a couple of buddies rode up to Muskoka for a full day ride (full suit), then rode straight downtown to meet a few other friends for a bite near Dundas square. Picked up my passenger who lives 5 minutes from theere and she just had a full faced helmet.

So me and other riders were in in full suit while my passenger is in jeans. Pretty sure someone would see us and rant about how i was in full gear and my passenger wasnt safe lol

I completely agree with the OP btw. Im just saying not every situation as straight forward as it looks.
 
Oops, how did that get into the wrong thread?
 
Last edited:
My 16-year-old daughter just took a more serious interest in riding with us this year including a multi-day trip we just took a few weeks ago – the first thing I did was go out and drop many hundreds of dollars buying her proper gear.

I agree passengers need gear, but unfortunately the "it won't happen to me" mentality is still strong.
 
As far as I'm concerned, when you carry a passenger you are absolutely 100% responsible for their safety and well-being.
I'd don't care if you're just going around the block; once riding pillion, their life is in your hands.

I have a full set of spare gear. Even if I have to throw an oversized leather jacket on a tiny female passenger on a 30C day, she's wearing it!
 
I drive/ride 60k a year, i see it all the time. Dude in FF helmet and boots, girl on back in shorts. An idiot girlfriend I can forgive, taking kids out on a 400series hiway is close to child negligence.
 
I actually think 400 hwy safer than say Brampton traffic but same principle applies.

What I don't get is squids - front or back with partial armor....what's the point.
 
As I said, I really don't care what adults do, whether they are the rider or the passenger. If you're an adult you should be capable of assessing each situation on an individual basis and taking the precautions you deem necessary. Children however can't appreciate the risk in many activities. It's not always a parent who is the rider, sometimes its an aunt or uncle or just a friend of the family, but the child's parent should be able to see the risk in sending their child out on a motorcycle in shorts and tshirt and not allow it. Lots of situations where endangering a child will get you a visit and free colonoscopy from Children's Services. This should be one of them. 99.9% of the time I fully believe in staying out of other people's business, especially when it comes to raising their children, but if you're going to do something stupid like this, I don't have a problem with making a phone call.
 
Morrissey said:
Lots of situations where endangering a child will get you a visit and free colonoscopy from Children's Services. This should be one of them. 99.9% of the time I fully believe in staying out of other people's business, especially when it comes to raising their children, but if you're going to do something stupid like this, I don't have a problem with making a phone call.
Click to expand...

There is no law that requires a child to wear any safety gear other than a DOT approved helmet. Your phone call wouldn't amount to anything.
 
You'll remember a few years ago there was a private member's bill that would have made it illegal for passengers to be 14 years of age or under. Bill died when legislative session ended and proposed bill was not re-introduced. If my faulty memory is correct this proposed bill was brought forward because of some well publicized incident where a young passenger was injured. Premise was that young passengers might not be able to hold on properly and/or were not able to consent to riding and assuming the risk of injury.

As with many things driven by publicity and supposedly well meaning MPP's we're one bad accident away from this type of bill being re-introduced.

Above aside, I cringe when I see someone go by wearing a tee shirt, shorts and flip flops and hope they don't ever go down and get to spend the next 6 - 12 months learning about skin grafts.
 
MacDoc said:
I actually think 400 hwy safer than say Brampton traffic but same principle applies.

What I don't get is squids - front or back with partial armor....what's the point.
Click to expand...


This

Look at me on my gixer bro, with my back armor and no shirt!
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom