Why are riding pants often ignored?

[Wavex]

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

 

[Goop]

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.

Exactly what I told my wife not too long ago. We saw a guy on a sport bike with a helmet, shorts, tank top, and sandals. She asked why would anyone wear something like that, blasting down the freeway at 80 MPH. I said that some people are willing to take more risk than others. Life is risky, it's all about what risks you are willing to take and how you manage those risks. For him, his choice of apparel was good enough. An unfortunate consequence of this would be to crash and lament his choice after the fact, or become another statistic.

 

[tweak89]

I just had a thought about calculated risk and safety.

As motorcyclists we are kind of taught of all the dangers of being on a bike, and rightly so.

But, we don't think twice about hopping into say an MX5 convertible or a dinky little smart car or any number of small or lightweight sporty cars. Do we think, "I better put on a helmet and safety gear" ? Nope.

But in a 40 MPH crash in a car like that you are likely to sustain as much physical damage (have you seen what an airbag can do to someone who is sitting too far up?) as you would in a 40 MPH motorcycle crash while wearing sensible safety gear (helmet, jacket, glove and boots).

Hi or lo side off your bike, at least you have some protection when you hit the ground. Get ejected from a car? You are possibly going through a windshield and the hitting the ground with ZERO protection.

Strange the feeling of invincibility that being surrounded by a steel cage gives us. Strange that there are a myriad of things we do everyday that put us in danger, but we don' give it a second thought.

The world would be a safer place if everyone had a riders mentality.

 

[RJ2112]

I just had a thought about calculated risk and safety.

As motorcyclists we are kind of taught of all the dangers of being on a bike, and rightly so.

But, we don't think twice about hopping into say an MX5 convertible or a dinky little smart car or any number of small or lightweight sporty cars. Do we think, "I better put on a helmet and safety gear" ? Nope.

But in a 40 MPH crash in a car like that you are likely to sustain as much physical damage (have you seen what an airbag can do to someone who is sitting too far up?) as you would in a 40 MPH motorcycle crash while wearing sensible safety gear (helmet, jacket, glove and boots).

Hi or lo side off your bike, at least you have some protection when you hit the ground. Get ejected from a car? You are possibly going through a windshield and the hitting the ground with ZERO protection.

Strange the feeling of invincibility that being surrounded by a steel cage gives us.

Autos are designed to crumple, about 1 foot for every 10 MPH of impact speed..... it's a pretty good rule of thumb for determining speed at impact. That controlled deformation is used in the same manner as your helmet's foam liner. It decreases the change in speed the things inside may experience.

Any current auto, is designed with internal crumple zones, as well.... the padded dash, the knee bolster, the collapsing steering collumn; not to mention the air bags, and shoulder/lap restraint systems. The passenger cage is a re-enforced box that should not collapse. If you stay inside, you will live.

If you remain in your designated position in a car, you will survive upwards of 40 MPH sudden stops with little more than bruising. Maybe a burn from the airbag.... even those are less injurious now that they have the dual rate bags in use -- you only get whacked with the full blast inflation, if you hit something REALLY serious. It's effectively a shot gun blast's worth of powder to inflate the things.

Once a car passenger exits the interior of the vehicle, they are subject to everything a motorcyclist faces every minute they are riding. Most of the forces in play are so serious, safety gear cannot compensate. If you whack into something at 40 MPH....... internal damage from your spleen not slowing down as much as your rib cage , etc., is going to happen.

The few pounds of fat at the top of our necks is by far, the most significant safety equipment installed on a bike. Training helps. Not riding with your head planted where the sun don't shine, helps. Not riding mad. Not riding tired. Intoxicated. Extremely cold.......

Gear makes it more likely the operator will be comfortable and alert to their surroundings. Good stuff.

 

[Wavex]

But, we don't think twice about hopping into say an MX5 convertible or a dinky little smart car or any number of small or lightweight sporty cars. Do we think, "I better put on a helmet and safety gear" ? Nope.

But in a 40 MPH crash in a car like that you are likely to sustain as much physical damage (have you seen what an airbag can do to someone who is sitting too far up?) as you would in a 40 MPH motorcycle crash while wearing sensible safety gear (helmet, jacket, glove and boots).

I believe that your assumptions are wrong.

Between airbags, seat belt and a steel cage specifically designed to absorb an impact around you, I believe you are MUCH safer in a car than on a bike in case of an accident.

It sounds to me like you're trying to justify something... but logic and statistics clearly show a big difference...

And I've witnessed crash testing on the Smart and you'd be VERY surprised to see its ratings...

 

[Gilo-FZ6]

ive been riding in jeans since 2005 why? im 6'7" or 8" ish and with a 36-37" inside leg..protective trousers are a nightmare to find up until last summer when i managed to find a RST 2pc leather set that fitted ..its the best purchace i ever made . i still need to find a more suitable pair for commuting and A - B trips

 

[tweak89]

I believe that your assumptions are wrong.

Between airbags, seat belt and a steel cage specifically designed to absorb an impact around you, I believe you are MUCH safer in a car than on a bike in case of an accident.

It sounds to me like you're trying to justify something... but logic and statistics clearly show a big difference...

And I've witnessed crash testing on the Smart and you'd be VERY surprised to see its ratings...

Not trying to justify anything. Simply stating that we take our general safety for everyday things for granted. But we think about safety every time we get on our bikes. This thought was inspired by someone mentioning calculated risks.

Being in the engineering field for 18 years I don't need dissertations on how well cars are designed.

If the two of you who commented on what I posted actually READ what I typed, I simply stated that if you get EJECTED from a car you are pretty much on your own because we don't give extra safety gear a thought because we are in cars that are supposed to protect us when we crash.

The air bag comment was tossed in because it can, in some cases, cause you a good deal of harm (think short people who ride right on top of the steering wheel).

But, no one gives things like that any thought because we are supposed to be safe when riding/driving in a car.

If you remain in your designated position in a car, you will survive upwards of 40 MPH sudden stops with little more than bruising.

IF. People who get ejected have obviously not remained in the designated postion.

if you hit something REALLY serious. It's effectively a shot gun blast's worth of powder to inflate the things.

So, then what happens to that person who has to sit on top of the steering wheel?

Once a car passenger exits the interior of the vehicle, they are subject to everything a motorcyclist faces every minute they are riding. Most of the forces in play are so serious, safety gear cannot compensate. If you whack into something at 40 MPH....... internal damage from your spleen not slowing down as much as your rib cage , etc., is going to happen.

Gee, that's what I was trying to say. Once you leave the car you are up **** creek. Why? Because we don't think for a second about protection. BTW, I survived hitting a concrete wall with my FACE at about 45MPH because of the safety gear I was wearing. Every circumstance is different. That's why all the crash data in the world doesn't mean a thing to the person who just died in their super safe 5 Star crash rated vehicle.

Just in case you missed the entire point of my original post let me spell it out for you.

As motorcyclists, we think safety first. When not on our bikes, most of us don't give extra safety measures when doing daily tasks (like driving a car) a second thought.

 

[CHEMIKER]

Why?

For me, it's simply because Fonzie wore a jacket but never wore riding pants.

 

[RJ2112]

I know very few motorcyclists that think 'safety first'. If that were the dominant thought...... they wouldn't be riding motorcycles.

Motorcycles are far from idiot proof..... there's no way that a bike can be made as safe as a car. Inherently unstable. Even a Miata convertible is worlds safer. Up to the point that a Miata is rolled, there's no comparison. (then, it's less 'safe' than the Smart.) But you already know all of this.

If you want to pick exceptions to prove your point, expect that to be pointed out. An exceptionally small person driving a car with air bags is potentially subjected to a more energetic contact with the air bag. ( My sister in law is 4' 10" tall. She had to stop driving when she hit her 8th month of pregnancy, because she couldn't reach the pedals any more. )

Is it a bad thing, that the car protects the VAST majority of drivers far more efectively?

The majority are so insulated from the physical risks they undertake driving a 3000 lb object around, they think it's okay to text doing so. All we've done is engineer a better idiot.

 

[Norbert]

Fortunately my job requires me to be fully armored. This is me on my commute.

 

[Wavex]

If the two of you who commented on what I posted actually READ what I typed

hmmm, you wrote this:

But in a 40 MPH crash in a car like that [mx5 or smart] you are likely to sustain as much physical damage (have you seen what an airbag can do to someone who is sitting too far up?) as you would in a 40 MPH motorcycle crash while wearing sensible safety gear (helmet, jacket, glove and boots).

And I gave you my opinion about your statement. If you don't like my opinion, sorry!

Just in case you missed the entire point of my original post let me spell it out for you.

As motorcyclists, we think safety first. When not on our bikes, most of us don't give extra safety measures when doing daily tasks (like driving a car) a second thought.

I am still not sure I grasp the point you're trying to make... People will take "extra safety measures" when there is an increased risk justifying it (like riding a motorcycle)... Once I am off the bike in my garage, the risk decreases, so why would I take "extra safety measures" when the risk doesn't justify it?

Everybody I know wears a seat belt while driving because of the increased risk... ppl look left and right before crossing the street because of the increased risk... people wear a helmet to ride their bicycle because of the increased risk... these are "extra safety measures" chosen based on the level of perceived risk, aren't they?

Why would you want to wear a helmet and leather gear to drive a car since you have a seat belt, airbags, and cage around you that does a much better job at it?

 

[discgolfdude]

For me, it's simply because Fonzie wore a jacket but never wore riding pants.

Fonzie never road his bike, except one time. Other than that you never see him ride it.

 

[lytehouse]

When I'm going on a pleasure ride, no matter how short, I wear ALL my gear,
When I am riding to work, I do admit to not wearing my boots. My overpants are so easy to put on & take off, it's not an issue, and they fold up enough to stuff into the Givi. But to wear my riding boots while trying to do what I do, I guess I'll take my chances there.

 

[discgolfdude]

I have a pair of icon jeans that are reinforced in the knees and hip/butt. I want to get some over pants though.

 

[VEGASRIDER]

Biggest reason I don't is simply I live in the country..... I go down I'm going down hard! I am always aware of my surroundings... I never ride over my means and numerous times practice quick stops.... I raced motocross for a few years and can keep a bike straight and tires on the ground in a very quick stop situation... had to do it in the past on the fizzer.... stupid lady and her dogs........:spank:

This doesn't make any sense. Crashing and hitting the pavement resulting in injuries out in the country is no different than any other place, unless you're riding on a dirt road. Pavement is Pavement.

Riding within your means, practicing quickstops, etc are great, whiich every rider should do, however it has nothing to do with the amount of injuries you would sustain whether or not you're wearing riding pants. Even the best & safest riders will go down from time to time.

 

[champion221elite]

I really don't see an excuse for NOT wearing proper riding pants. It doesn't matter if I'm going to a buddies house 100 miles away, or riding to the grocery store for a gallon of milk. I wear all of my gear, all of the time.

That said, putting my gear together was not a singular event. It started out with a helmet followed by a jacket, gloves and finally a pair of Icon ARC textile pants. I still don't have an actual pair of riding boots, I do however wear a pair of heavily constructed Danner leather/ Gore-Tex boots. They're probably lacking a bit of protection when compared to actual riding boots, but they've got to be better than (God forbid) sandals or even sneakers.

Aside from actual riding boots, my next piece of safety gear will be some Draggin Jeans or similar Kevlar reinforced jeans. I will wear them in addition to my Icon ARC textile pants. I figure two layers of protection is better than one layer any day of the week.

 

[Wavex]

It doesn't matter if I'm going to a buddies house 100 miles away, or riding to the grocery store for a gallon of milk. I wear all of my gear, all of the time.

hahahaha

Great post, but I couldn't help but imagining myself putting on my thermals, back protector, slipping into my tight leather pants, putting a t-shirt on top of the back protector, followed by my leather jacket, gauntlet gloves, baklava and helmet, zipping everything together, and then jumping on the bike to go half a mile to the corner liquor store for a pack of cigarettes and then go home... LOL :BLAA:

 

[RJ2112]

Fortunately my job requires me to be fully armored. This is me on my commute.

That's a cute getup.

Just for the sake of sh*ts and giggles.....

How much better do you suppose Storm trooper armor would be (compared to blue jeans and a tee shirt) at protecting a rider in a 60 MPH impact? I'm talking about tee boning a car...... let's just say he's pulling that wheelie at the time.

 

[champion221elite]

hahahaha

Great post, but I couldn't help but imagining myself putting on my thermals, back protector, slipping into my tight leather pants, putting a t-shirt on top of the back protector, followed by my leather jacket, gauntlet gloves, baklava and helmet, zipping everything together, and then jumping on the bike to go half a mile to the corner liquor store for a pack of cigarettes and then go home... LOL :BLAA:

To your credit Wavex, it sounds as if you have a bit more gear than I do:thumbup: Generally, I'll try to incorporate an actual ride into an errand trip. That way, I'm not suiting up for nothing. I've gotten some strange looks from people while at the store, but I really don't care.

I remember one time that I got ready to ride but skipped putting on my riding pants. I almost made it out the door, but I thought better of it and said to myself "today is going to be the day". I went back inside and put my riding pants back on. Thankfully, nothing happened but wearing all of my gear made me feel more secure before leaving the driveway.

 

[Wavex]

To your credit Wavex, it sounds as if you have a bit more gear than I do:thumbup: Generally, I'll try to incorporate an actual ride into an errand trip. That way, I'm not suiting up for nothing. I've gotten some strange looks from people while at the store, but I really don't care.

I remember one time that I got ready to ride but skipped putting on my riding pants. I almost made it out the door, but I thought better of it and said to myself "today is going to be the day". I went back inside and put my riding pants back on. Thankfully, nothing happened but wearing all of my gear made me feel more secure before leaving the driveway.

I hear you... I rode around the block of my house without gloves or a helmet a couple of weeks ago to test my camera setup on the Buell and it felt great but weird... I never ride without at least my helmet/gloves/jacket, but if any of the 3 is missing it definitely feels wrong...