I may be totally off in my reasoning but here it is anyway:
For me:
- Planned full day ride = full gear without even thinking about it.
Why? Because I believe that for me, the risks increase exponentially when we're having fun (read "going at a good pace") in the canyons/mountains where there are lots of cliffs and blind corners...
- Quick 10 mile ride to go run an errand = full gear minus boots/pants.
Why? Because I am lazy and I am willing to take what I believe is a calculated risk. I believe I have less of a chance to need road-rash protection on a quick 10 miles ride on side city streets -where I am not going fast or leaning the bike- compared to when in the canyons for hundreds of miles... To me, the main risk on side streets is direct collision, in which leather vs jean's would not make much of a difference. Are there scenarios in which my knee caps would be saved by the knee armor in my leather pants? Yes, and I acknowledge that fact.
At the end of the day, riding in and of itself is the main risk... the way you choose to ride, the protective gear you choose to wear, the bike you decide to ride, the amount of learning you're willing to go through...etc are all personal choices that impact the overall amount of risk you take, but unfortunately, none of them mitigate that risk completely (far from it).
So it all comes down to evaluating the trade-offs and making a risk management decision for yourself. While your perception of the risk involved in riding down the street to Starbucks would warrant you going through the pain of wearing your full gear, it doesn't warrant it to me.
Am I right or wrong? I don't think either of us is right or wrong about it, I think it's a personal choice based on individual risk perception and individual risk threshold.
I personally don't understand someone ripping through a canyon road wearing shorts/flip-flops and no helmet, but again, some people feel comfortable doing it, which means that
A- they know the risks but are willing to take them anyway, or,
B- they're retarded and don't realize the risks involved.
If A, then so be it... it's their lives (too bad for insurance rates).
B is what I believe is the majority of cases... and that's sad.
About me not wearing my pants/boots on quick rides, I see myself in A (I am sure some of you will think I am in B, and I probably am to some extent... but aren't we all at least a little bit crazy for riding a motorcycle??? :Flip
For me:
- Planned full day ride = full gear without even thinking about it.
Why? Because I believe that for me, the risks increase exponentially when we're having fun (read "going at a good pace") in the canyons/mountains where there are lots of cliffs and blind corners...
- Quick 10 mile ride to go run an errand = full gear minus boots/pants.
Why? Because I am lazy and I am willing to take what I believe is a calculated risk. I believe I have less of a chance to need road-rash protection on a quick 10 miles ride on side city streets -where I am not going fast or leaning the bike- compared to when in the canyons for hundreds of miles... To me, the main risk on side streets is direct collision, in which leather vs jean's would not make much of a difference. Are there scenarios in which my knee caps would be saved by the knee armor in my leather pants? Yes, and I acknowledge that fact.
At the end of the day, riding in and of itself is the main risk... the way you choose to ride, the protective gear you choose to wear, the bike you decide to ride, the amount of learning you're willing to go through...etc are all personal choices that impact the overall amount of risk you take, but unfortunately, none of them mitigate that risk completely (far from it).
So it all comes down to evaluating the trade-offs and making a risk management decision for yourself. While your perception of the risk involved in riding down the street to Starbucks would warrant you going through the pain of wearing your full gear, it doesn't warrant it to me.
Am I right or wrong? I don't think either of us is right or wrong about it, I think it's a personal choice based on individual risk perception and individual risk threshold.
I personally don't understand someone ripping through a canyon road wearing shorts/flip-flops and no helmet, but again, some people feel comfortable doing it, which means that
A- they know the risks but are willing to take them anyway, or,
B- they're retarded and don't realize the risks involved.
If A, then so be it... it's their lives (too bad for insurance rates).
B is what I believe is the majority of cases... and that's sad.
About me not wearing my pants/boots on quick rides, I see myself in A (I am sure some of you will think I am in B, and I probably am to some extent... but aren't we all at least a little bit crazy for riding a motorcycle??? :Flip