Full gear all the time?

[BoristheBiter]

Depends what you mean by gravel rash. ATGATT wont always protect you from bruises, scratches and abrasions or even burns. Will make it a lot less. Generally I am in favour of ATGATT but lately I have wondered if we take it too far. Shorts, t-shirt and jandals is just plain stupid but with some CBDs now have 30k speed limits, and we all stick to the speed limit how much more does ATGATT protect you over a strong pair of jeans, a strong jacket and a helmet at 30 - 50k?

Should have quoted Maha's milk run as it is that post I am thinking about whilst asking the above, see below.

The sliding down a dirt track with only shorts and t-shirt on after falling off push bike and spending a few hours in hospital picking stones out of legs and arms type of gravel rash.

As has been stated I will protect myself, if you don't want to wear it no skin off my arse (pun intended).

[oneofsix]

What the fuck has putting on gear got to do with your head-space. Your head-space affects how you ride, being confident enough of your safe riding style not to bother with full gear suggests either stupid invulnerability or confidence in ones ability. I'd hope for most of us not crashing in the first place is far more important than mitigating damage if you do (not that they are exclusive of course). What we ride in, and what we ride are far less important than how we ride.
Gear isn't magic dude, it provides a level of protection relative to impact speed/direction, and slide distance/surface. I wouldn't be surprised if jeans at 50k offers the same practical level of protection that riding pants at 100k does.

That was kind of my point. If jeans at 50k do provide sufficient protection then is it counter productive to harp on about ATGATT all the time or have we taken the meaning of ATGATT to far. All the Gear for off road is different to all the gear for the track, and road etc. so for popping down the shop in a 50k area is all the gear helmet, cloves, jacket, jeans and boots or sturdy footwear?
You can go over urban speed on the pedally or scoot and yet, whilst many here will not accept it, the level of gear they wear is acceptable to the authorities and the general public.

[sootie]

The whole business of what gear to wear has to be up to the rider's own assessment of risk, and before anyone asks, yes, I have been smashed up on a bike, fortunately while well protected.

I do not walk around town carrying a large lightning rod, even though I know a significant number of earthlings are killed each year by lightning strike! I walk acroos pedestrian crossings without protection (bloody dangerous near where I live!) I don't wear a crash helmet when I drive the cage either!

I do try to drive/ride with full awareness & care at all times. I make an assessment about what level of protection is sensible for the duration and nature of each two wheeled trip, and that is how I dress. I probably get it a bit wrong some times but I am still not going to carry a lightning rod or grossly over dress every time I ride.
Life is about risk management.

By the way, I also ride a pushbike, and in traffic I think that is more dangerous than a small nimble motorcycle.
I hate having no view of the vehicle behind me, while I am being continuously overtaken!
(Any good motorcyclist should be aware that a bike over 250kgs is not so nimble & ride accordingly.)

[BoristheBiter]

That was kind of my point. If jeans at 50k do provide sufficient protection then is it counter productive to harp on about ATGATT all the time or have we taken the meaning of ATGATT to far. All the Gear for off road is different to all the gear for the track, and road etc. so for popping down the shop in a 50k area is all the gear helmet, cloves, jacket, jeans and boots or sturdy footwear?
You can go over urban speed on the pedally or scoot and yet, whilst many here will not accept it, the level of gear they wear is acceptable to the authorities and the general public.

But then depending on what you are on depends on what gear you're wearing.
I would never think of wearing my leathers while riding my dirt bike and vice-versa. Mind you if I was doing 200+ through Woodhill my current gear might seem a bit lacking.

No I don't think we have taken it too far, just some push it more than others. A bit like this hi-vis debate.

[bogan]

That was kind of my point. If jeans at 50k do provide sufficient protection then is it counter productive to harp on about ATGATT all the time or have we taken the meaning of ATGATT to far.

As long as riders realise gear is for damage control, and riding style is for avoiding damage altogether, I think its all good. The only downside to wearing gear is time taken to put it on (assuming you don't wear ill fitting gear), so you can't overdo the gear itself as long as it doesn't affect the other aspects of a ride.

For example, I just went to the shops and had a light change green which I could have blitzed through at 50k, however since the other cars were all looking pretty slow and it had just gone green I slowed down and checked both ways. After doing so, I wondered if some of the ATGATT crowd would have just gone through because they had right of way, and would be less concerned about the small chance of an off cos of their gear.

[oneofsix]

But then depending on what you are on depends on what gear you're wearing.
I would never think of wearing my leathers while riding my dirt bike and vice-versa. Mind you if I was doing 200+ through Woodhill my current gear might seem a bit lacking.

No I don't think we have taken it too far, just some push it more than others. A bit like this hi-vis debate.

Most that mention it push the all as absolute and a lot of the rest of us just nod our heads because we agree with them as a generalisation.
As for hi-vis it appears bikers aren't the only ones with that problem by this morning's Herald . Same blind believe that hi-vis can be seen any where any time but in this case I would suggest it does actually sometimes help the wearer get spotted as they aren't in the open like bikers.

[LankyBastard]

I've came off recently at only around 30 kph, and I tell you, even at that slow speed, my legs would have been right fucked had i not been wearing proper pants. The pants were properly ripped up. That really makes you wear all the gear every time!

I then learned a similar lesson off road.....

[BoristheBiter]

Most that mention it push the all as absolute and a lot of the rest of us just nod our heads because we agree with them as a generalisation.
As for hi-vis it appears bikers aren't the only ones with that problem by this morning's Herald . Same blind believe that hi-vis can be seen any where any time but in this case I would suggest it does actually sometimes help the wearer get spotted as they aren't in the open like bikers.

See that is the same problem. not all hi-vis is created equal.
When I am hunting I wear blaze orange. It is completely different to hi-vis clothing. In low light it stands out like dogs balls.
I have watched other hunters walk through the bush on the other side of the valley and picked out only their high-vis.

Like bike gear I will continue to wear it, if it helps that will be great, if it doesn't at least it is comfortable.

[f2dz]

Tempted a few times to not wear my proper pants with armor in them, but I've never ridden without all my gear on.

Murphy's Law, the time you choose to not wear gear will most likely be the time you wished you had.

[onearmedbandit]

After doing so, I wondered if some of the ATGATT crowd would have just gone through because they had right of way, and would be less concerned about the small chance of an off cos of their gear.

Not me. I wear the extra protection in case I come off, not so I can ride with less care.

[Tigadee]

I like putting my gears on... makes me feel like Iron Man. Here's a picture of me with full gear on:

[oneofsix]

Tempted a few times to not wear my proper pants with armor in them, but I've never ridden without all my gear on.

Murphy's Law, the time you choose to not wear gear will most likely be the time you wished you had.

+1 It's easy to debate and gather opinions on here but don't think I am likely to risk it any time soon. To think I started with just the helmet, some ski gloves and PVC, they do say ignorance is bliss, glad I didn't have an off back then. At least the kids have started with proper gear.

[SMOKEU]

I ALWAYS ride road bikes in full riding gear, including a leather jacket, armoured riding pants, leather gloves, leather boots and a full face helmet. One time I rode a dirt bike with all the gear, except jeans instead of my riding pants. It wasn't fun having to pick stones out from under the skin in my knee after I binned it.

[whowhatwhere]

What the fuck has putting on gear got to do with your head-space. Your head-space affects how you ride, being confident enough of your safe riding style not to bother with full gear suggests either stupid invulnerability or confidence in ones ability. I'd hope for most of us not crashing in the first place is far more important than mitigating damage if you do (not that they are exclusive of course). What we ride in, and what we ride are far less important than how we ride.
Gear isn't magic dude, it provides a level of protection relative to impact speed/direction, and slide distance/surface. I wouldn't be surprised if jeans at 50k offers the same practical level of protection that riding pants at 100k does.

What a charmer. There's a relationship between "I'll just nip to the shop, it's not far so jeans will do" and taking the time to gear up. If you're not in a rush gettinng protected then you're not in a rush trying to get somewhere. Of course gear isn't magic but fuck, it doesn't hurt to lesser your chances of road rash. The comparison of jeans at 50 vs decent pants at 100 is meaningless. Which is better at 50? Which is better at 100? Same answer for both ffs.

[oneofsix]

What a charmer. There's a relationship between "I'll just nip to the shop, it's not far so jeans will do" and taking the time to gear up. If you're not in a rush gettinng protected then you're not in a rush trying to get somewhere. Of course gear isn't magic but fuck, it doesn't hurt to lesser your chances of road rash. The comparison of jeans at 50 vs decent pants at 100 is meaningless. Which is better at 50? Which is better at 100? Same answer for both ffs.

It is normal to put shoes/boots on, throw on a jacket and not too much of a chore to put on gloves and helmet - a bit like putting the seat belt on, but to pull on another pair of trousers is a bit more unusual and a bit more of a chore. Makes taking the bike more time intensive than jumping in the car. None of which affects where your head is at. Putting the gloves and helmet on or closing the door and putting the seat belt on is mean I adjust my head space.

None of the above changes your point that no matter the speed full gear is more protective than part gear. Then again living in a bubble would be more protective again.