Two guys on a Honda BB, T shirt and trainers, GSX R jeans and trainers today..

[Alan]

I am old enough to remember the fuss when compulsory helmets and seat belts were introduced and people saying no ones telling me what to do. Now most people wouldn't ride or drive without them. It is personal choice, but I wouldn't want to see it legislated what we wear. No way am I being told I have to wear hi viz clothing to make up for the myopic car drivers short comings

[shiftyblake]

I agree it is a personal choice, I wouldn't change that, as it is each to their own. But Hi-Viz is a totally different risk argument to armour.
Hi-Viz to its supporters (juries out (I wear it in the dark and fog)) is a supposed preventative risk control reducing the likeliness that a risk (accident) will materialise, it won't help you if the risk materialises, you head butt a car in a silly looking jacket instead of a cool looking black one. But it is supposed to prevent accidents from materialising in the first place (no evidence yet). Armour's risk argument is that it lessons the consequences not the likeliness , as it is supposed to lesson the consequences when the risk materialises, more so than wearing a T shirt.

Armour can have adverse consequences in risk, as it can give the rider a feeling of extra safety and in turn a rider might take more risks wearing it. Risk compensation. Remember the old argument that if you put a spike on a cars steering wheel aimed at a drivers face they would drive more safely !!