Atgatt

Forum Sponsor
Since the question was whether people who atgatt were atgatt in this heat, and not what are some lame excuses for going squid. I'm going to say yes I went squid last night wearing jeans instead of proper leathers. Not sure if I'll do it again it just didn't feel right.I don't have a super powerful bike, and don't ride like a maniac either, but I like the feel of my skin being in all the right places. It's weird that people who have gone squid for years always feel the need to jump into these topics and attempt to justify their lame excuses for going squid again and again.
 
Being the recipient of the recessive redhead gene in my family, i have little choice but to go full gear, lest I burn like a lobster. An underarmour shirt, t-shirt, armoured textile jacket it is. Make a few stops to hydrate, and all is well. Just common sense IMO.
 
I always wear at least boots, jeans, mesh jacket, gloves, and helmet (of course). Yesterday I was heading over to a friends place to do some work on my bike. He lives about 1.5 suburban side street kilometers from me so my top speed would be about 60KMH. I decided to squid it which meant runners, jeans, t-shirt, mesh shorty gloves. Even that short distance at relatively low speeds I was uncomfortable. Just the flapping of the shirt drove me nuts.

I'm not going to judge anyone for what they wear when they ride. Lot's of people think riding a motorcycle alone is a death wish. Whatever you ride or whatever you wear when you ride, be safe out there.
 
Baggsy said:
Do squids wear jeans or does it have to be shorts?
Click to expand...

In the course, i was told jeans were apart of the ATGATT, obviously we weren't going as fast and only the 'bare minimum' was required but still, that being said when i ride to work, i wear a suit or dress pants but always try to wear everything else (gloves, leather jacket, boots, helmet *obvi*) would that put me in the squid column?
 
Griffin said:
I disagree completely. I wear full gear and don't ride on the road with my knee down. And cruisers go down as easily (and quite probably more often) than sport bikes. The road doesn't care what bike you were on as it grinds your flesh off.

You may choose not to wear gear and frankly, I couldn't care less what other people wear (other than passengers) but don't try to rationalize the decision as somehow being safer on a cruiser. That's just crap.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating that people should not use helmets, nor am I arguing that people shouldn't wear gear. But the choice should be a personal one that is based on legal requirements on one hand, and a realistic appraisal of risk to self on the other. Risk appraisal is very much situation-dependent. There is no one-size-fits-all risk measure for riders.

In the US, the riders most likely to wear full gear are sportbike and supersport bike riders. The riders least likely to wear gear are cruiser riders, and many of those cruiser riders won't even wear a helmet in the half or more of states that do not mandate compulsory helmet usage. Yet, guess which group has the highest fatality rates?

Here are the results by bike type: http://www.insurance-canada.ca/claims/canada/2007/IIHS-high-performance-motorcycles-deaths-709.php
[TABLE="class: normal"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 8"]Note: Total includes all motorcycles except those identified as off-road (ATVs and dirt bikes)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]2000[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 3"]2005[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]
[/TD]
[TD="class: bottom"]Deaths[/TD]
[TD="class: bottom"]Registered
motorcycles[/TD]
[TD="class: bottom"]Deaths per
10,000 registered
motorcycles[/TD]
[TD="class: bottom"]Deaths[/TD]
[TD="class: bottom"]Registered
motorcycles[/TD]
[TD="class: bottom"]Deaths per
10,000 registered
motorcycles[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]Cruiser/standard[/TD]
[TD]976[/TD]
[TD]1,752,377[/TD]
[TD]5.6[/TD]
[TD]1,583[/TD]
[TD]2,778,348[/TD]
[TD]5.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]Sport/unclad sport[/TD]
[TD]248[/TD]
[TD]229,020[/TD]
[TD]10.8[/TD]
[TD]430[/TD]
[TD]401,130[/TD]
[TD]10.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]Supersport[/TD]
[TD]619[/TD]
[TD]273,733[/TD]
[TD]22.6[/TD]
[TD]1,128[/TD]
[TD]501,002[/TD]
[TD]22.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]Touring[/TD]
[TD]256[/TD]
[TD]480,314[/TD]
[TD]5.3[/TD]
[TD]521[/TD]
[TD]807,291[/TD]
[TD]6.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]Other/unknown[/TD]
[TD]442[/TD]
[TD]829,944[/TD]
[TD]5.3[/TD]
[TD]388[/TD]
[TD]893,567[/TD]
[TD]4.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]Total[/TD]
[TD]2,541[/TD]
[TD]3,565,388[/TD]
[TD]7.1[/TD]
[TD]4,050[/TD]
[TD]5,381,338[/TD]
[TD]7.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]




You are right in that a given type of bike may or may not be inherently more safe or unsafe than another, but certain types of bikes do let the rider get in over their heads far more easily and quickly than others. Also, certain types of riders will tend to gravitate towards a certain genre of bike because of performance characteristics of that bike.

The stats in the article goes on to note various kinds of riding errors and choices by bike type. Sport and supersport bike fatalities are twice as likely to include excessive speed as a factor, while cruiser fatalities are more likely to involve alcohol.

The biggest threat to life and limb is not road rash. Road rash can be painful as hell and may force a time-out from riding, but by itself road rash properly treated/cleaned/disinfected will seldom kill you. The biggest threat is massive blunt force trauma and the force encountered in such trauma increases exponentially with speed.

Griffin said:
For those that rationalize it based on comfort or reducing the experience by wearing gear I think you're misguided but do what you want. Just realize the risk is far greater as a result and don't try to rationalize that short trips are okay, or low speed is okay or that "riding safely" is okay. Cause that's just crap.
Click to expand...
Using your rationale and extending it to the family car, there is no difference between taking the car for fast laps around the race track and making a short hop to the corner store for milk. In both situations, only a fully-prepped car with a full roll cage, window-netting, 5-point safety harness, nomex suit gear for the driver, and a helmet will do.

Clearly that is overkill. Instead we do make a trade-off between maximizing occupant safety should a crash happen versus practical comfort decisions, and we do it on a daily basis in just about every aspect of our lives. As long as our choices fall within the law and do not impact the safety of others, who is anyone to dictate to others what their choices should be?

Same applies to riding. Aside from what is legally required, wear what you feel is appropriate given your own risk comfort levels and type and location of riding, as determined by you, in conjunction with your own personal assessment of the hazards you are likely to face on your ride. Riding a quiet back road does not pose the same risk exposure as a fast-moving busy highway, and both are far different from doing fast laps on a track or, may the OPP be there, dragging knees through the Forks.

All the gear in the world won't protect you from serious injury arising a hard impact into a front or rear bumper, hydro pole, or the tires of a transport.

Your gear, if you choose to wear gear to whatever degree, should be seen as a last-resort safety-net, and not as the primary line of defense. The first line of defense is avoiding the crash altogether, and the best way to avoid risk of crash is to adopt careful, conservative, and defensive riding habits.
 
Last edited:
Nyx13 said:
It has nothing to do with age, my bike or skill level...it has EVERYTHING to do with me liking my skin on my body and not on the asphalt! I've had my M for 22 years, I've gone from cruisers to sport bikes and I've always worn full gear. Helmet, gloves, the works. It doesn't matter if you go down slow or in a major crash, asphalt on bare skin is gonna hurt like Hell! I've never, ever ridden with just a T-shirt or shorts, etc. I have on occasion worn jeans..but that's as far as it goes and I rarely do it because frankly, I feel vulnerable when I wear them...they'll shred in a heartbeat :(
Click to expand...

You've made a valid choice based on your comfort levels. Would you impose your choice on others, and if so, why?
 
turbodish said:
I'm not advocating that people should not use helmets, nor am I arguing that people shouldn't wear gear. But the choice should be a personal one that is based on legal requirements on one hand, and a realistic appraisal of risk to self on the other. Risk appraisal is very much situation-dependent. There is no one-size-fits-all risk measure for riders.

In the US, the riders most likely to wear full gear are sportbike and supersport bike riders. The riders least likely to wear gear are cruiser riders, and many of those cruiser riders won't even wear a helmet in the half or more of states that do not mandate compulsory helmet usage. Yet, guess which group has the highest fatality rates?

Here are the results by bike type: http://www.insurance-canada.ca/claims/canada/2007/IIHS-high-performance-motorcycles-deaths-709.php
[TABLE="class: normal"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 8"]Note: Total includes all motorcycles except those identified as off-road (ATVs and dirt bikes)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]2000[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 3"]2005[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]
[/TD]
[TD="class: bottom"]Deaths[/TD]
[TD="class: bottom"]Registered
motorcycles[/TD]
[TD="class: bottom"]Deaths per
10,000 registered
motorcycles[/TD]
[TD="class: bottom"]Deaths[/TD]
[TD="class: bottom"]Registered
motorcycles[/TD]
[TD="class: bottom"]Deaths per
10,000 registered
motorcycles[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]Cruiser/standard[/TD]
[TD]976[/TD]
[TD]1,752,377[/TD]
[TD]5.6[/TD]
[TD]1,583[/TD]
[TD]2,778,348[/TD]
[TD]5.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]Sport/unclad sport[/TD]
[TD]248[/TD]
[TD]229,020[/TD]
[TD]10.8[/TD]
[TD]430[/TD]
[TD]401,130[/TD]
[TD]10.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]Supersport[/TD]
[TD]619[/TD]
[TD]273,733[/TD]
[TD]22.6[/TD]
[TD]1,128[/TD]
[TD]501,002[/TD]
[TD]22.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]Touring[/TD]
[TD]256[/TD]
[TD]480,314[/TD]
[TD]5.3[/TD]
[TD]521[/TD]
[TD]807,291[/TD]
[TD]6.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]Other/unknown[/TD]
[TD]442[/TD]
[TD]829,944[/TD]
[TD]5.3[/TD]
[TD]388[/TD]
[TD]893,567[/TD]
[TD]4.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: left"]Total[/TD]
[TD]2,541[/TD]
[TD]3,565,388[/TD]
[TD]7.1[/TD]
[TD]4,050[/TD]
[TD]5,381,338[/TD]
[TD]7.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]



You are right in that a given type of bike may or may not be inherently more safe or unsafe than another, but certain types of bikes do let the rider get in over their heads far more easily and quickly than others. Also, certain types of riders will tend to gravitate towards a certain genre of bike because of performance characteristics of that bike.

The stats in the article goes on to note various kinds of riding errors and choices by bike type. Sport and supersport bike fatalities are twice as likely to include excessive speed as a factor, while cruiser fatalities are more likely to involve alcohol.

The biggest threat to life and limb is not road rash. Road rash is painful as hell and may force a time-out from riding, but by itself road rash properly treated/cleaned/disinfected will seldom kill you. The biggest threat is massive blunt force trauma and the force encounter in such trauma increases exponentially with speed.


Using your rationale and extending it to the family car, there is no difference between taking the car for fast laps around the race track and making a short hop to the corner store for milk. In both situations, only a fully-prepped car with a full roll cage, window-netting, 5-point safety harness, nomex suit gear for the driver, and a helmet will do.

Clearly that is overkill. Instead we do make a trade-off between maximizing occupant safety should a crash happen versus practical comfort decisions, and we do it on a daily basis in just about every aspect of our lives. As long as our choices fall within the law and do not impact the safety of others, who is anyone to dictate to others what their choices should be?

Same applies to riding. Aside from what is legally required, wear what you feel is appropriate given your own risk comfort levels, type and location of riding and riding, as determined by you, in conjunction with your own personal assessment of acceptable

All the gear in the world won't protect you from serious injury arising a hard impact into a front or rear bumper, hydro pole, or the tires of a transport.

Your gear, if you choose to wear gear to whatever degree, should be seen as a last-resort safety-net, and not the primary line of defense. The first line of defense is avoiding the crash altogether, and the best way to avoid risk of crash is to adopt careful, conservative, and defensive riding habits.
Click to expand...

Well said!
 
Kennerisclutch said:
In the course, i was told jeans were apart of the ATGATT, obviously we weren't going as fast and only the 'bare minimum' was required but still, that being said when i ride to work, i wear a suit or dress pants but always try to wear everything else (gloves, leather jacket, boots, helmet *obvi*) would that put me in the squid column?
Click to expand...

nope. Squid is usually the Tshirt/shorts/sandels crowd
 
turbodish said:
Your gear, if you choose to wear gear to whatever degree, should be seen as a last-resort safety-net, and not as the primary line of defense. The first line of defense is avoiding the crash altogether, and the best way to avoid risk of crash is to adopt careful, conservative, and defensive riding habits.
Click to expand...
Deleting half of the quote only for the sake of space, I agree with everything in your post. Very very well said. I can't figure out why people don't like you.
 
Why does it bug ppl so much if other ppl don't want to wear gear?

i know there's a feeling of brotherly love in that you just want others to be safe, but really, I think most ppl are able to make the judgement for themselves.


Ah, and incase it's brought up, I was out on sunday morning to midday, mesh jacket, gloves, fullface and boots.... I only wear jeans - would like at least some kevlar tho...

It's warm, but probably cooler than letting the sun beat down on my skin.
 
JFD said:
Why does it bug ppl so much if other ppl don't want to wear gear?

i know there's a feeling of brotherly love in that you just want others to be safe, but really, I think most ppl are able to make the judgement for themselves.


Ah, and incase it's brought up, I was out on sunday morning to midday, mesh jacket, gloves, fullface and boots.... I only wear jeans - would like at least some kevlar tho...

It's warm, but probably cooler than letting the sun beat down on my skin.
Click to expand...

Same here. It seems to be the gloves and boots that get to me most on these days. I am looking at the bmw airflow boot or similar now...
 
TorontoBoy said:
When there is high humidity, like we have in the GTA, the evaporative vest does not work as efficiently. High humidity means there is already lots of water vapour in the air, so additional evaporation will not occur, and thus may not cool you down as well as in a very dry climate.
Click to expand...

Yes and No. I've found that the humidity doesn't affect the evaporative properties of the vest as much as I expected. What does affect it is the air speed through the vest.

In any event, temperatures that, the last few years, would have seen me sweat like a pig in jeans and a t-shirt are no longer an issue regardless the humidity as long as I keep the speeds up. Another large factor is I never wear cotton while riding; always dry-fit materials that aid in wicking and cooling under my suit.
 
yeah tried some mesh armored gloves but damn things split after one ride
Have some JR mesh on order - the black tourmaster are just too hot on days like yesterday.

I skipped the boots as well....

someone asked about Kevlar ....bought sliders 3 online - fit was right on and they go on and off with your boots on - BUT hot - yep - not stiff like ballistic pant tho - very soft and flexible. Cargo style too.

Also have on order Recon 3 which I'm hoping will be an ideal hot weather solution.

and they convert to shorts :D
DSC_1680_zoom.JPG


http://www.revzilla.com/motorcycle/olympia-recon-3-mesh-pants

Good post TD
 
turbodish said:
The biggest threat to life and limb is not road rash. Road rash can be painful as hell and may force a time-out from riding, but by itself road rash properly treated/cleaned/disinfected will seldom kill you. The biggest threat is massive blunt force trauma and the force encountered in such trauma increases exponentially with speed.
Click to expand...

You're going to have to cite this, as I've seen it before, but no one could back it up with anything. Seems to be made up to rationalize not wearing gear.

I don't really care what other people wear. I just don't like squids attempting to push their choice at others to justify doing it themselves. Finally, I haven't seen a good reason yet for not wearing my gear.
 
MacDoc said:
yeah tried some mesh armored gloves but damn things split after one ride
Have some JR mesh on order - the black tourmaster are just too hot on days like yesterday.

I skipped the boots as well....

someone asked about Kevlar ....bought sliders 3 online - fit was right on and they go on and off with your boots on - BUT hot - yep - not stiff like ballistic pant tho - very soft and flexible. Cargo style too.

Also have on order Recon 3 which I'm hoping will be an ideal hot weather solution.

and they convert to shorts :D
DSC_1680_zoom.JPG


http://www.revzilla.com/motorcycle/olympia-recon-3-mesh-pants


Good post TD
Click to expand...
Great boots, like the pants, nice legs, do you workout?-Ty
 
I reuse to answer on the grounds it might incriminate me .:confused1:
....if I had legs like those at 63 I'd be mighty pleased.
 
Even in the sweltering heat I put on all the gear I own. Unfortunately I don't have proper leg protection yet and just wear jeans. (As I prefer them anyway.) Will invest in some under-armour and kevlar reinforced jeans soon to at least get some additional leg protection. Other than that it's leather jacket, gloves and riding boots all the time.
 
Baggsy said:
You're going to have to cite this, as I've seen it before, but no one could back it up with anything. Seems to be made up to rationalize not wearing gear.

I don't really care what other people wear. I just don't like squids attempting to push their choice at others to justify doing it themselves. Finally, I haven't seen a good reason yet for not wearing my gear.
Click to expand...

NHTSA has a paper out called Bodily Injury Locations in Fatally Injured Motorcycle Riders. You can find it at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810856.pdf .

It does separate stats out by helmeted and unhelmeted riders. Among helmeted riders, the most prominent single cause of death noted is head injuries. Also up on the list are thorax, neck, and abdomen. In Ontario the head is usually covered by a helmet. The other areas of the body noted are those that contain the body's critical organ and nerve clusters. None are areas that would be among the first to be "skinned" in a bad crash.

Among cause of crash fatality, in the US over half of fatalities are due to crashing into a fixed object, and not sliding down the road to a slow skinning stop. That figure sounds reasonable for Ontario, where in 2008 about 48% of motorcycle fatalities were single-vehicle crashes.

Again, going back to the stats I posted earlier in this thread, the groups most likely to be fully-geared up in the US, sport and supersport bike riders, also have the highest fatality rates. If they're geared up, they're not going to be road-rashed to the same degree as a gearless rider. So, you answer the question - what is killing them?
 
Last edited:
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by turbodish

The biggest threat to life and limb is not road rash. Road rash can be painful as hell and may force a time-out from riding, but by itself road rash properly treated/cleaned/disinfected will seldom kill you. The biggest threat is massive blunt force trauma and the force encountered in such trauma increases exponentially with speed.
Click to expand...
You're going to have to cite this, as I've seen it before, but no one could back it up with anything. Seems to be made up to rationalize not wearing gear.

I don't really care what other people wear. I just don't like squids attempting to push their choice at others to justify doing it themselves. Finally, I haven't seen a good reason yet for not wearing my gear.
Click to expand...

He did back it up with stats on sports bikes deaths per thousand and there are lots of stats around about gear or no gear - high speed kills...road rash hurts.

Seems to me you're the one pushing ATGATT on others. That you haven't seen a reason for wearing a variety of gear depending on circumstances is of no matter to anyone but you yet you want to challenge judgement calls by others who approach it differently..
Don't care but you're being sanctimonious as if someone is trying to convert you.

Wear what you want when you want and let others do the same......been the point for a while now. :rolleyes:
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom