[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!)