Is ATGATT overrated?

Sure, and you have the right to do that, but why critcise others that have done the same risk assessment and drawn the same line at a different place.

Motorcycling is about managing risk, the stupid absolutism of ATGATT is ridiculous especially since even the ones that yell the loudest about it don't even do everything they can to minimise the risk (because they have taken the risk assessment and decided that airbag leathers are not worth it).

It is like - "everyone that wears less gear that me is a squid, and everyone that wears more gear than me is a worry wort"

Just ride your own ride.

You want to define ATGATT. That's fine. But so far that's not what this thread has been about. The anti-gear folk seem acknowledge that they aren't ATGATT. Some don't wear helmets or even shoes.

I got no problem talking gear (jeans are not gear), and no problem letting people ride their own ride.. Here's a quote from earlier.

I will wear jeans, but not shorts.

My line, or one of them, sort of, for today anyhow.......

My definition of ATGATT is the literal one. ALL the gear (so the best gear available on the market at that time- currently would be airbag leathers, kidney belt, back and chest armour and ff helmet and gloves and boots) and you have to wear that ALL THE TIME (so everytime you ride).

So I doubt that anyone does this....because most people take a risk based approach to decide what gear is appropriate in what situation (where they are on the risk spectrum).

I am just annoyed at those that get sanctimonious at others because they fall on a different part of the risk spectrum.

I have worked my way up through various stages. Way back when I started riding, I used to wear shorts only when it rained because it was easier to dry off when I got to where I was going.

I could be close to that..

Dual Sport boots with armor, motoport mesh over pants with knee and hip armor/padding. Motoport mesh jacket with chest, spine, elbow and shoulder armor. Motoport Gloves, full faced helmet.

This is my normal, commuting the work, riding on the weekend, touring setup.

Mesh is not as superior as leather (at least on the road) for abrasion so I wouldn't consider that the best and therefore not ATGATT


I am not criticising, I am just showing that everyone looks at the risk and assesses the gear that they wear based on that risk.

I wear a red hunting hat and the deer flee into the woods when they see me coming.

Motoport mesh is good stuff, read up on it. It's abrasion resistance also doesn't degrade as quickly as leather that's exposed to sweat. I've seen leather rot after only one riding season.

What exactly is ALL the gear? That is a good question. For me, and for road riding, it is a helmet (preferably not open-face), riding jacket (that has a back protector, or use a separate one), riding gloves, boots, pants, knee protectors. And of course there is a wide variety of all these available, some good, some not so good.

​

But actually this thread has gone from "is wearing all the gear overrated" to "I don´t need to use basically any gear at all, because I ride so safely".

I always wear a FF helmet, gloves, jacket, and boots but usually when commuting in my urban environment just wear regular pants. I always use dedicated motorcycle pants when riding for recreation though.

I do this as I have a need to be presentable at my destination and accept the risk. I figure in a worst case scenario abrasion injuries to my legs will not be debilitating unlike say a head injury, hand injuries, feet, or even upper body injuries.

Not sure if this makes me ATGATT or mostly ATGATT. When I see people cruising around with only a half helmet, I have to assume they have never crashed and ignorant of the risks.

No one can argue that leather and some other materials are more abrasion resistant but I have crashed in textile gear (Olympia) and slid to a stop from 65kph. Any pressure point like say your elbow, that you have your full body weight concentrated on, for the full slide, will wear through, but the armor underneath continues to provide abrasion protection. My point is that any decent textile gear should be sufficient for regular street riding protection. You don't need leathers or Motoport Kevlar gear to have sufficient protection unless you you are track riding.

As another poster stated, we ATGATT types wear what we regard as "all the gear" for two reasons: 1. a measure of protection in a get-off, and 2. comfort. Let's discuss those two reason:

1. In a bad crash, ATG increases the odds of survival but certainly doesn't guarantee it. In most non-fatal crashes, good gear decreases your injuries and often enough is the difference between painful rehab and a casket. Riding a bicycle in any MC gear would INCREASE the danger - just too hot for safety. I think serious cyclists realize how unprotected their bodies are except for the head (bike helmets have prevented a lot of concussions) and hands (yes, they wear gloves, though often fingerless.)

2. Good MC gear (appropriate for the conditions, and every year the stuff available becomes more versatile and user friendly) is simply more COMFORTABLE than a T-shirt and shorts when you are riding. Hot and dry, hot and humid (bad,) cold and dry, cold and raining - there is gear that will keep you fairly comfortable in all those conditions, and often the same suit with different liners. Being comfortable on your bike is definitely a safety issue. We all know that any distraction from riding is dangerous, and that distraction can be over heating, hypothermia, or a wasp up your leg as easily as cell phone or GPS attention.

The only bad thing about most gear (maybe the one-piece Roadcrafter is an exception) is that it takes some time to put it on and take it off. I have run four errands in a town on the bike and the gear was a major PIA. Better to take the car. And for a shopping trip, that is now what I do.

But for riding, I'm sticking to my version of ATGATT (everything except the waist belt, chest protector, and air bag - and I haven't ruled them out; just haven't researched them.)

BTW, I am not in that supposed majority of riders who have never crashed a bike. Have done it twice. And I wonder how this statistic was arrived at, as it certainly doesn't reflect the conversations I've had with a number of very experienced riders.

But, as others have said, wear what you want. And I hope you always arrive home with body and bike intact.

Let´s not mix bicyclists into this. First of all, when they are the engine, that means producing a lot of heat in your body, which needs to be ventilated as well as possible in hot weather. And carrying a few extra kilos of gear matters as well, when you pedal the load forward. So they have very valid reasons, why they do not wear all body armour.

And it´s true, that bicyclists can proceed pretty fast on some downhill sections as well, but generally the speeds on a bicycle are still a lot slower than what you can easily reach on a motorcycle.

You know you dont need to go fast as a bike can go? You can easily ride slower than a pushbike if you choose. You can choose to offset risk.

And in summer it is very hot on the motorbike, more than a pushbike.

This thread makes my head hurt. I need to remind myself to not open it again.

Yes, of course you could choose to ride using only 1st gear, for example ... but if there is any other traffic on that same road, then going slower than others would most likely not improve your safety. Going with the traffic flow would be the better, and by then, depending on road of course, you are often going faster than almost all bicyclists, at least outside the city areas.

​

For me the whole "yeah, but I´ll ride slower"-thing just somehow does not hold water. Maybe some people do, but most do not.

So if going slow is so dangerous why dont bicyclists wear atgatt? If going slow is not dangerous then a motorcyclist can choose to do that.

If you cant control yourself not to be able to go slow you really have no business being on a bike.

I bicycle as well as ride a motorcycle. Always wear a helmet on the bicycle too, in fact it is mandatory by law here. In reality the risks and types of crashes are very different when it comes to bicycles and motorcycles. The only crashes on a bicycle where serious injury can occur are when you get struck by a car and sustain impact injuries. Abrasion injuries can occur too but speeds are always slow enough these are always minor. On a motorcycle injuries can occur from other things as well such as flying through the air and landing on a hard surface, tumbling at speed, a long slide on pavement, sliding into an object at speed, having a heavy motorcycle land on you and others.

I just explained this to you (post #776).

And I´d add a couple more things to the bicycle/motorcycle argument: reachable speeds, and average speeds, are not the only differences between them. Your motorcycle itself can also hurt you in a crash much worse than a bicycle can. You can be thrown on a ´highside´ from your motorcycle, and you or parts of your body may be trapped under your motorcycle, causing very bad damage.​

You said heat, which motorcycles are hotter in summer than any bicycle, and speed, which is silly as you can control your speed on a motorcycle and can ride just as slow as a bicycle. You choose your soeed (or you should).

As for highsides, if you are riding as slow as a bicycle then you wont highside the thing and get trapped under it. If I was riding in a way that highsides were possible, I would wear gear, otherwise I wont.

It really does sound like it is your riding that is meaning that you need gear all the time. That is your choice but not everyone is like you.