Originally Posted by blk-betty
Points taken. I can only speak on my experiences and very few riders in my area are ATGATT, that includes GS/GSA riders as well as cruiser riders.
I'm just trying to understand why some feel the need to make comments about the intelligence of others based simply on their bike and gear choice.
I'll bet some here ride both motorycles and road or mountain bicycles and those bicycle riders are a competitive bunch. They tend to ride hard and fast be it on the pavement or in the woods. Their safety gear is minimal compared to motorycle gear, yet the hazards aren't that much different.
How does one rationalize he must wear a full face helmet, full gloves, boots over the ankle, textile or leather jacket/pants with body armour on the bike and a spandex leotard, fingerless gloves, less than half-helmet head protection, and lightweight shoes with exposed arms and legs when on a bicycle.
I'm not saying wearing gear is pointless. I'm asking at what point is wearing all the gear too much of an impediment such that one either decides to take the car, or wear less than full gear.
If by some law it was mandated that one must wear full protective gear (helmet, gloves, boots, body armour) at all times I honestly would probably give up riding. It's the wind in my face, sun on my skin that makes it so enjoyable to me.
BTW, I work in health care and often see catastrophic spinal cord injury patients. Given the choice I'd choose death.
I ride mountain bikes, though not competitively, and am planning to try the upgrade to a full face helmet. It's not nearly as practical to wear all the gear on a bicycle because you'd quickly overheat, but gloves are doable, and really a must as when you come off a bike typically the first thing you do is put your hands out.