To ATGATT or Not to ATGATT?

[James Burleigh]

I met a motorcyclist recently who works for NHTSA as a motorcycle safety rep, and who is a Rider-Coach. I'm having lunch with him next week, and in our e-mail exchange I mentioned that I was seeing a lot of riders in their "summer gear," meaning t-shirts, shorts, and flip-flops. This prompted the following comments from him, which I thought I'd share with the group:

And….. you are right, I also have seen a lot of shorts and tennis shoes. Obviously I don’t agree with this and would never do it. But…. Think about this for a moment. MSF talks about the ladder of risk. They talk about how safety clothes reduces your risk on this ladder. But what risk are they really talking about….. to me it is the implied risk is crashing. But, safety clothes has nothing to do with crashing, it has to do with injuries if you crash….. We talk about riding a motorcycle as being more risky than driving a car…. Is this really true????? Somebody runs a red light and broadsides you… the risk of this occurring is the same no matter if you are on a motorcycle or in a car…. The difference between the car and the motorcycle in this case is not the risk, it is the exposure, the motorcyclist is more exposed to an injury than the car driver.
 
So here is the big question, if we ride defensively and stay within traffic bounds, which means following the traffic laws and we keep the maintenance up on our bikes are motorcyclist at any more risk of a crash than a car driver????? I have to spend more time thinking this through, but my first take on this is no, we are not.
 
Now we can increase our risk, excessive speed, drinking and various other things/actions we can do to increase our risk of a crash, but these are things we can also do in a car. So, is it really an issue of risk, or exposure?????
 
So…. A little thing for you to think about…..
And then he followed up with....

Correct me if I am wrong, but the philosophical point here is that what the rider is wearing is not at issue until he crashes. The realistic part is if the rider is doing what he is suppose, is a good rider, riding smart and riding with a plan isn’t he minimizing his risk of a crash? The other part of this is that I think the bike can dictate the clothes….. riding the cruiser style bikes virtually requires long pants to keep from getting exhaust burns on your legs… but I have been seeing a lot of shorts on Harley rides lately, Sports bikes, most of the heat is away from the rider and exhaust burns aren’t as big as an issue. However, all of this can also be arguable…. For me, always long pants, gloves and over the ankle boots…. Every trip, every time.

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

He's probably right -- it probably doesn't make any difference, philosophically.

But, in America, the statistics probably won't bear that out: other road users say they don't see motorcyclists -- the gear you wear can work toward changing that. The choice of ATGATT/NOGATT may be an indicator of other choices made, good/bad? Even the choice of: "long pants, gloves and over the ankle boots" may not be considered effective "gear" by some?

The motorcycling activity doesn't happen in a vacuum -- everything affects everything. Stack the deck in your favor: ATGATT, training, experience, and good choices.

 

[HotRodZilla]

That's like me saying, "I don't need to wear body armor, because I train alot and therefore have minimized my risk of getting shot." The point of wearing protective gear is obviously not to protect us when we are NOT crashing. It is to protect us when some event (deer, other car, gravel, oil, speed, innatention. etc.), wether our fault or not, puts us on the pavement. It's the same principle behind seatbelts and airbags. We do not have the protective shell of the car surrounding us, so we wear our shell.

To answer his question: We are at risk because of exposure. There is a huge difference between minimizing our risk of a crash and eliminating our risk of a crash. If I was able to eliminate the possibility that I would ever crash my bike, I would ride in swim trunks. Until that happens, I'll stick with my gear. Like I told someone this weekend: It is cheaper than new skin.

 

[twowheelnut]

Meh, I'm done with the argument discussion and at this point, you don't know how much **** I really don't care anymore. Ride nekkid, be happy if you want.

Um, one more thing... HRZ? You might want to change that avatar before odot sees it and brings you a bouquet of roses. Jus' sayin'.

 

[HotRodZilla]

Um, one more thing... HRZ? You might want to change that avatar before odot sees it and brings you a bouquet of roses. Jus' sayin'.

I was gonna leave it for a day or two and if my warning meter didn't pop I was thinking of leaving it up for a while. My Sgt. put that pic above our list of absconded *** offenders. I can't help but laugh. Besides...I like roses.

 

[twowheelnut]

Besides...I like roses.

Catcher. I figger'd as much.

:lol: J/K

 

[JRO]

other road users say they don't see motorcyclists -- the gear you wear can work toward changing that.

Indeed. Who has a white helmet, though?

 

[madmike2]

other road users say they don't see motorcyclists -- the gear you wear can work toward changing that.

Indeed. Who has a white helmet, though?

Old Michael has a yellow helmet. Does that count?

Re: ATGATT. One of the reasons I wear the gear is that it changes my mental state to: "You're riding your bike, pay attention!" Putting on my gear is part of the mental preparation before I ride.

A philosophical discussion is a nice mental exercise. Unfortunately the end result of any incident is physical reality.

 

[uctofeej]

Interesting observations by your friend. Personally, I think it is a question of choosing your own exposure within a set of risks. It's interesting that we all talk about "the risk" associated with riding, but never weight the risks (clearly it's more than one), as in assign the chance of a particular type of event occurring. In my job of teaching first responders about terrorism prevention and catastrophe preparedness, we use a formula that can be expressed as Risk = Likelihood x Consequences. The same can be applied to riding.

What are the threats one faces on the street? What are our vulnerabilities to those threats? How likely are they to occur at any given time? What are the consequences of each one? How devastating can each set of consequences be if they occur?

With answers to these questions, one can arrive at their own decision whether it is worth it to wear the gear.

 

[Geezer]

First off, we are at a higher risk because we ride a smaller vehicle, in particular with a smaller front area, and the cagers simply don't look hard enough before pulling out to always see us.

I wear a hi-viz yellow jacket and a red helmet while riding my blue bike to increase the odds that I wiull be seen. It doesn't stop people from pulling out in front of me, but it does increase the chances that I have been seen. Sometimes I think the cagers figure I must be a safety Nazi and it is OK for them to pull out because I'll stop for them. :huh:

 

[v65]

MSF talks about the ladder of risk. They talk about how safety clothes reduces your risk on this ladder. But what risk are they really talking about….. to me it is the implied risk is crashing.

IMO that's where your friend is wrong, it is the implied risk of injury in the event of a crash that justifies the ATGATT

 

[brazos parker]

Risk is an interesting subject...there are even books written abt it (AGAINST THE GODS: The Remarkable Story of Risk).

Personally, I buy home insurance, auto insurance, health insurance, etc to lay off some of the risk of catastrophic loss to the insurance company(s). Some buy futures contracts to lay off some price risk to the holder of the contract. I put TOG's, radiator guard, tank protector on my FJR to transfer some risk of damage to those items rather than the more expensive plastic, radiator and/or tank. And, I wear ATGATT to transfer some of the risk of damage to my protective clothing rather than my skin/bones.

Finally, as said many times before, risk and the acceptance of different amounts of risk, is a very personal matter. So, if one is comfortable accepting higher risk and chooses not to insure his home, auto, health, etc., then, by all means "go for it." Similarly, if a motorcycle rider chooses to accept a higher level of risk by wearing a tank top, shorts and flip-flops, then, by all means, "go for it."

I may shake my head when I see a rider riding "naked," but I'd never lecture him about it. It's his choice and risk. I can only cross my fingers that his acceptance of a higher level of risk pays off.

 

[DE OPPRESSO LIBER]

Simply put, I don't care how careful I am or what I do to minimize my risk, there are always things that are out of our control with too many variables. The simple fact remains that the possibility of crashing will never be zero. I'd rather be hot and sweaty for a while and be uncomfortable instead of needing painful skin grafts, or worse. ATGATT. Does it suck sometimes when the temps are up and it's hot in all that ger? Yep. Have I considered wearing less? Yep.

Have I ridden in jeans and sneaks? Yep. Then I got (smart) the right gear and now I feel naked without it. Either way, it is a personal choice that every rider makes for themselves. My buddy who rides a Harley always stops after crossing the line into New Hampshire to take off his helmet. I think he's nuts, but hey, it's not my brain.

 

[Silver Penguin]

Interesting thoughts there JB. My own choice, like many others here, is to stick with ATGATT. It's simple the equate bike ride = gear. No other decision making needed.

It has been my experience that the type of rider who tries to minimize risk of injury by wearing gear is that same rider who also tried to minimize risk of incident by sober, defensive riding, additional training etc. The squids doing wheelies on the freeway and the posers staggering out of a bar to their cruiser are neither the ATGATT types, nor the defensive riders.

The ladder of risk is a good way to look at things. Some of the choices I make will lower my risk, yet I opt for other choices which raise my risk.

Jill

 

[keithaba]

MSF talks about the ladder of risk. They talk about how safety clothes reduces your risk on this ladder. But what risk are they really talking about….. to me it is the implied risk is crashing.

IMO that's where your friend is wrong, it is the implied risk of injury in the event of a crash that justifies the ATGATT

Exactly....

From my looks at the NHSTA statistics, when you factor in the total number of cars vs. number of motorcycles (reported) to be on the road, you are actually less likely to be in an accident on a bike.

However, those in an accident with another car, were something like 4 times more likely to die, than 2 cars coliding. The gear may not prevent you from becoming injurred, or killed, but I bet it sure raises the probability of survival and minimizes injuries. However, that sort of data don't really seam to exist. It would be a good study.

 

[uctofeej]

The gear may not prevent you from becoming injurred, or killed, but I bet it sure raises the probability of survival and minimizes injuries. However, that sort of data don't really seam to exist. It would be a good study.

Interesting point. It makes me wonder: Aside from the helmet and possibly a back protector, isn't the rest of our gear just abrasion resistance?

 

[HartClimbs]

Yeah - it's like when I rockclimb.

It's not the risk of a fall - it's the risk of a landing that I'm concerned about. Some guys climb with a helmet, some freeclimb with no belay. At the end of the day - it's personal choice about the level of risk you accept.

Same with the bike (although with fewer ropes and carabiners

How the risk is stated is just semantics. Dress smart, go far, and ride safe.

 

[Toecutter]

other road users say they don't see motorcyclists -- the gear you wear can work toward changing that.

Indeed. Who has a white helmet, though?

Me!

(non-Snell)

 

[cadman]

other road users say they don't see motorcyclists -- the gear you wear can work toward changing that.

Indeed. Who has a white helmet, though?

i own a white helmet, a HJC AC-10. and a yellow XS1100. the main reason for the helmet color was to help eleviate the summer heat.