You're basing your conclusion regarding open faced helmets on 24 accidents in Australia? What speed were they at? What type of road? Urban or Rural setting? Did they fall off the back, side or front of the bike?
Interesting Accident Study - Helmet related
- Thread starter spmcleod
- Start date
You're basing your conclusion regarding open faced helmets on 24 accidents in Australia? What speed were they at? What type of road? Urban or Rural setting? Did they fall off the back, side or front of the bike?
daveyflakes
Well-known member
I think this statement is inaccurate. Not because I think you're wrong, but because your statement is based on a flawed source, i.e. this study. There is so much information that is missing from this study that "appropriate gear" arguments based on this study are not much more than speculation.
It says right there in the first paragraph:
The cases comprised 222 motorcycle crashes occurring on public roads in the Melbourne metropolitan area from late November 1995 to 30 January 1997 in which the rider or pillion was taken to one of the participating hospitals or died.
This study in no way accounts for, nor recognizes, crashes where the riders walked away. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of these riders were wearing "appropriate clothing"--and the study results would be much different if it included data from crashes not resulting in hospitalization or death.
Griffin
Well-known member
I agree. It's a totally unsupported conclusion based on the evidence presented. Seems a typical "analysis" either intended to support an already held believe or just really bad statistical analysis resulting in a stupid and dangerous conclusion.
Seems to me a bit like saying "twenty 80 year olds were surveyed and they were in good spirits and they had eached smoked for 30 years. Therefore smoking is not statistically bad".
First rational argument about this that I've read, I think you're right and yes I think that does sway the data. So then we have to look at the study in and of itself, would it be fair to say that when a certain threshold is crossed, in terms of severity of an accident, results are not significantly different?
Or would you suspect that say there's a single vehicle low side accident, the proper leathers walks away and the improperly dressed guy goes to the hospital, and then the properly dressed guy who goes to the hospital was in a much more severe accident?
I can see an argument being made about the riding gear, but the helmet thing I think still stands up... I think a full face is safer definitely but the CHANCES of going face first into something are lower, so yes it does happen and you'd be better off with the full face if it did, no question, but generally impacts occurs around the sides and top of the helmet...
"Of the 145 helmets inspected, 120 (83%) had obvious signs of damage. These included chips and scratches (113), damage to the chin bar (5), fractures (6) and visor detached (9). The interior padding was visibly worn or compressed for 63 helmets (43.4%). The chin bar of two AGV helmets fractured."
We can take that for what it's worth, in 145 helmets that had an accident, only 7 had damage to the chin bar... which means in this sample 4-5% of people made facial contact. So all I'm saying is riding open face isn't AS dangerous as it's made out to be. And when I say open face I'm talking 3/4 helmets, not those little beanies or anything. I think that's fair.
thebipolarbiker
Active member
If you don't want to wear "appropriate clothing", this survey will support you. If you like to play but don't want to get damaged, you'll ignore it as vague and keep your gear.
I've seen enough scraped chin bars and road rash, thanks.
I've seen enough scraped chin bars and road rash, thanks.
How many riders ride around every day without crashing
why are helmets even necessary
I don't want to nerd out on everyone here, but I think this epitomizes what is wrong with not only the debate, but "studies" in general. When you're looking at a study, don't focus on the results. The results are only going to tell you what the authors want to tell you. Look, instead, at how the studies were conducted, who was in the studies, and who was not in the studies. Because by analyzing that, you can get an idea of what the studies really say, and not what the authors are trying to tell you. So by all means, pay attention to that guy's sarcastic opinion, and declaring that the only equivalent evidence worth listening to is another study gives this study under review far more authority than it should ever receive.
In this case, the study tells us that among motorcycle accident victims that land in hospital in an urban area, there is no significant difference between the number of full-face helmetted riders and open-face helmetted riders (see what I did there? I explicitly did not say that full-faced helmets don't prevent injuries more than open-faced helmets). Which, when you think about it, makes sense: a serious accident is going to involve more than just the face; so even if your face gets injured, odds are your shoulder / legs / etc. are also hurt. Note how the study doesn't point out how many of the people wearing full-face helmets also wore proper protective clothing; so someone could have been wearing a full-faced helmet and a t-shirt. And of course, also note how proper protective clothing isn't given a satisfactory definition. So someone could have been wearing a full-faced helmet and a hooded sweatshirt, or someone could have been wearing an open-faced helmet and a proper leather jacket, and look where they would have been categorized. What also needs to be taken into account is cultural differences between Australian riders and North American riders. What if all of those open-faced helmet riders also wear 1.4 mm leather jackets and pants and gloves? What if those open-faced helmet riders have lots of experience, ride giant cruisers that travel slowly on side streets and have loud pipes*? What if the full-faced helmet riders are noobs riding 1 litre sport bikes and were predominantly riding on the highway? You think this wouldn't make a difference?
So what the study is really saying is that full-face helmets don't have any magical properties that prevent you (where "you" = residents of Melbourne) from getting into accidents that would otherwise put open-face helmet riders in hospital. Which nobody ever thought in the first place.
Bear this in mind the next time you hear on the news, "A new study released shows that drug x causes nasty side effect y..."
* So everyone knows, I am being intentionally sarcastic on the point about loud pipes.
Last edited:
I just got back from Deals Gap......and as we were driving thru Ohio and Kentucky, we noticed that 80% or more of the riders we encountered had no helmets at all.
They are not forced to by law, but obviously can opt to wear one of their own accord....but most choose not to.
I do wonder if we Ontarians would take the same train if we weren't mandated to wear helmets.
I think in places like Ohio and Kentucky, most riders go helmet-less because it is not only socially acceptable, but wearing a helmet seems to be frowned upon socially in motorcycling circles. I also found the same attitude in Indiana when I was there for a few days during each of the last 3 MotoGP weekends held there.
They are not forced to by law, but obviously can opt to wear one of their own accord....but most choose not to.
I do wonder if we Ontarians would take the same train if we weren't mandated to wear helmets.
I think in places like Ohio and Kentucky, most riders go helmet-less because it is not only socially acceptable, but wearing a helmet seems to be frowned upon socially in motorcycling circles. I also found the same attitude in Indiana when I was there for a few days during each of the last 3 MotoGP weekends held there.
Griffin
Well-known member
Just as an example of the faultiness of this "study" and the conclusions you're drawing from it: 145 helmets were inspected but only 5 had damage to the chin bar. Hmm, okay, so how many even had chin bars? I'd be far more interested in knowing how many full face helmets were examined and what the results were.
But, frankly, this study is so flawed and limited that it isn't worth the time to even investigate. What I'd be interested in is a far wider range of incidents involving different speeds and road conditions and different types of motorcycles, riding styles, experience and training of the riders. That is, assuming that I'm particularly interested in the results anyways.
For me, the reality is obvious, logical and inarguable - full face helmets protect me better than other types. Full gear protects me better than not.
