The benefits of body armour...

[Seeker]

... or lack thereof. From Fortnine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nINIJ1cAbYM

[Craig380]

Interesting, but I disagree based on my own personal experience. When I wrote off my K6S on a patch of diesel in 2019, I went down HARD on my hands and knees at about 40mph. I was wearing kevlar-reinforced jeans with CE armour at the knees (nothing fancy either, they were no-brand jobs from eBay).

I had bruising on both knees and a bit of bleeding from 'carpet burn' rashes where my thermals had been dragged quickly across my skin from friction, but no broken bones. I'm certain that without the armour, I'd have broken both knees / adjacent leg bones.

[TamSV]

Haven’t checked his sources but he may be right enough. I have upgraded armour for the simple reason that some of the cheap stuff is too bulky. I don’t think it makes sense that just because the minimum standard isn’t great you should do away with the concept of armour altogether.

I’ve also removed armour completely for reasons of comfort with the thinking that I’ll be safer anyway if I’m comfortable (and warm and dry).

I do find these days I benefit massively from knee armour when kneeling the check my tyre pressures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[admin]

I've been toying with the idea of getting an airvest.

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk

[Ruffy]

It's a certainly a thought provoking proposition.

The one thing I wasn't wholly convinced about is whether the quoted study statistics adequately account for all the injuries that may have actually been prevented or lessened by armour that might have been in place. For example, armour may not have eliminated an injury but it could have been the difference beween a minor fracture and a more significant total break?

I've also wondered in the past from the perspective of a pedal cyclist. Significant injuries do happen in falls (seemingly mainly collar bone breaks) but even major widespread pro-peleton crashes seem to result only in cuts and bruises more than anything else, which is staggering considering how little 'protection' is offered by lycra athletic clothing.

Nowadays I'm generally more concerned with abrasion resistance consideration than impact resistance - avoiding gravel rash being my priority - so I'm tending to revert back to using less armoured types of gear more often. Mainly a lower body consideration though - unlikely I'll ever leave out shoulder and elbow pads from a jacket, because I've just got used to them being there and they're not really distracting.

I also find my riding attitude adjusts a bit depending on what I'm wearing - e.g. I'll likely reach my chosen personal limits for cornering and straight line speed a bit earlier when in my kevlar lined jeans than when in my armoured leather pants. (Though ear plugs out/in has a similar effect too!)

[Ruffy]

An interesting relevant counterview to the F9 piece.

[garynortheast]

That's interesting. I must confess that I wasn't entirely convinced by Ryan Kluftingers argument that we were better off without armour.

[redtrummy]

Body armour! I remember cruising around back in 67 with just a pair sunglasses, long sleeve shirt and a pair of gloves, oh happy days. There was four times less traffic then which made a difference. Same when we tried skiing or cycling even in the 80s - no helmets, not even thought of. Now you feel almost undressed without the appropriate skid lid. A few years ago we visited the Amalfi coast and I was shocked to see the main road thick with bikes and scooters, the riders totally disregarded any body protection, some not even wearing any gloves. How our attitudes have changed.

[SV650rules]

I have theory that cagers drive too fast because they have so many safety features, like seatbelts, airbags, auto-braking etc. They feel invulnerable in their tin boxes and maybe if all that was taken away and replaced with a long spike in the centre of the steering wheel they may take a bit more care...

[Ruffy]

Originally Posted by SV650rules

I have theory that cagers drive too fast because they have so many safety features, like seatbelts, airbags, auto-braking etc. They feel invulnerable in their tin boxes and maybe if all that was taken away and replaced with a long spike in the centre of the steering wheel they may take a bit more care...

I agree. It's well known as "risk compensation" theory - people sub-consciously adjust their behaviours to end up at the level of risk they feel comfortable with.