Your definition of full gear

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I don't see why. The question is about perception, not whether perception = reality. For that purpose it doesn't matter whether perception and reality are the same thing.

There are a lot of people down there who are legally able to ride without helmets. Their perception of what 'full gear' is can be skewed. There may be some who believe that they are wearing full gear when they have a leather jacket on, but no helmet. It makes for an interesting dichotomy.

Then there are those who do most of their riding on the track. To them my Aerostich suit might not be considered full gear, because it isn't legal wear for most track organizations. If you aren't using a back protector, then they might not consider you to be wearing full gear.

*sniff* *sniff*...do I smell "LOGIC"? No fair sir,you have completely derailed my argument with your underhanded use of logic! Well played!

I will,of course,defer to your well put statements on what a person's "perception" of what full gear may entail but I must still vehemently maintain that any one person's perception of what proper gear consists of will not in any way abrogate what full gear actually entails by "definition".