Interesting Accident Study - Helmet related

S

spmcleod

Well-known member
Forum Sponsor
This is pretty surprising... checkout a couple snippets of interest that I picked out of a motorcycle accident case study...

- facial injuries were uncommon and not significantly more common among those wearing open face helmets than full face helmets (8% versus 4%)
- wearing appropriate clothing did not significantly decrease the likelihood or severity of external injuries

It was a case study of 222 crashes with controls being 1195 motorcycle trips that passed the crash site at the same time of day and day of the week the crash occurred. (In Melbourne, Australia)

See the whole thing here, lots of cool info... http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/atsb174.html
 
I wear open face most of my riding time ( have a Shark for cold weather ) and while I wear mesh armor most times......I'll go shorts and short sleeve shirt when it's hot.

Seems I'm not risking as much as many might think and the study bears it out.

Interesting Accident Study - Helmet related

This is pretty surprising... checkout a couple snippets of interest that I picked out of a motorcycle accident case study...

- facial injuries were uncommon and not significantly more common among those wearing open face helmets than full face helmets (8% versus 4%)
- wearing appropriate clothing did not significantly decrease the likelihood or severity of external injuries

It was a case study of 222 crashes with controls being 1195 motorcycle trips that passed the crash site at the same time of day and day of the week the crash occurred. (In Melbourne, Australia)

See the whole thing here, lots of cool info... http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/atsb174.html
Click to expand...

I do wear gloves and decent footwear but even the gloves are optional at time. As far as I'm concerned I want the open air feel will use my judgement.
Hard riding in the twisties calls for the mesh armor, gloves and boots and long pants.

The approach has served me well for 43 years of motorcycling with no injuries and just a few bent mirrors in winter riding.

My assessment is the armor/ATGATT is too often a false protection leading to less safe riding practices by inexperienced riders and to some degree that is borne out = the gear does not help all that much.

If I'm in light clothes I ride carefully, sharper eye out and maybe a bit slower into the turn, a bit more braking time etc.
The armor gives confidence that may not be warranted. I do ride harder with it on and I think many are the same.

It IS personal choice but the above analysis should be a reminder that the gear won't help all that much in a serious crash
...bottom line is stay out of the dangerous situation and just maybe the lighter clothing keeps us riding more cautiously....it certainly does in my case.
 
Appropriate to the conditions.....
riding gravel in shorts and Tshirt is inappropriate....take it from there.
 
yeah I would agree with that... probably not talking about armoured track suits, but jeans and a jacket vs. t-shirt and shorts..
 
These studies usually are limited in some way, and this one appears to be no exception. Both statistics quoted by the OP are listed under the heading, "INJURIES TO MOTORCYCLISTS IN NON-FATAL CRASHES". Who's to say full gear or a full face might have made the difference between life or death? Also, this was limited to the city of Melbourne - if this study involved highways where the risk of abrasion injuries is arguably higher, it might read differently.
 
yeah it's non-fatal crashes, but that doesn't discount that data... of 222 crashes 25 were fatal total people were killed... you're right it doesn't say what helmet style they were wearing or even if a scrape on the nose and a fractured jaw were both considered "facial injuries", but overall what this says is that you are GENERALLY not significantly more susceptible to facial injury if your helmet is open face or full... obviously it does happen though, and if you took a direct hit to the face I would definitely rather have on a full face, but it seems facial hits are relatively uncommon, as supported by the 222 accidents studied here...
 
Problem with stastics is that common sense does not always play out (of course this is not the only problem). As for helmets I have read a few studies and from what I remember facial injuries are usally part of a high-side experience and are uncommon in low sides (both SVA). MVAs tend to be top and back of the head.

What I find intersting in the study is this line: after adjustment for BAC, there was no significant increase in risk associated with wearing an open face helmet compared to a full face helmet.

Does this mean one helmet type is worn by DUIs more than the other?
 
spmcleod said:
- wearing appropriate clothing did not significantly decrease the likelihood or severity of external injuries
Click to expand...

I do think it's funny when people claim their Joe Rocket jacket "saved their lives"... :-) Umm..not likely..
 
backmarkerducati said:
What I find intersting in the study is this line: after adjustment for BAC, there was no significant increase in risk associated with wearing an open face helmet compared to a full face helmet.

Does this mean one helmet type is worn by DUIs more than the other?
Click to expand...

My thought is that it means that they eliminate people that were drunk as their reaction/judgment is significantly impaired... so that the comparison is between normal/average riders with all their wits about them, and not being skewed cause someone was ripped in an open face helmet and wouldn't have been able to walk without landing face first...
 
I wonder what they were comparing......as far as no gear vs. what gear.

I wear full ATGATT all the time, even a back protector, regardless of where I am riding- a racetrack or riding to Hamilton.

In a lifetime of ridingIf it only saves me from one week off work due to injuries it is worth it.....and that is not even mentioning what the actual pain of road rash or any other injury would be worth to me.

I watched my brother have his road rash scrubbed with scoth brite pads daily at the hospital from crashing in the highway wearing a sweatshirt, Shoei hlmet, Tecknic gloves, jeans and sneakers. He screamed like a little gorl and physically wept every day begging me not to take himn back. He has the scar tissue to remind him now. I bet if I offered him, back then, to take away his wounds, and his pain, if he'd pay me 25 grand, he would have done whatever it took to pay it.
 
Last edited:
omnivore said:
I wonder what they were comparing......as far as no gear vs. what gear.

I wear full ATGATT all the time, even a back protector, regardless of where I am riding- a racetrack or riding to Hamilton.

If it only saves me from one week off work due to injuries it is worth it.....and that is not even mentioning what the actual pain of road rash or any other injury would be worth to me.

I watched my brother have his road rash scrubbed with scoth brite pads daily at the hospital from crashing in the highway wearing a sweatshirt, Shoei hlmet, Tecknic gloves, jeans and sneakers. He screamed like a little gorl and physically wept every day begging me not to take himn back. He has the scar tissue to remind him now. I bet if I offered him, back then, to take away his wounds, and his pain, if he'd pay me 25 grand, he would have done whatever it took to pay it.
Click to expand...

werd.gif


Couldn't have said it better myself. ATGATT.

Being careful when not geared up won't stop that kid from running across the road, or stop that cager from changing lanes just as you pass.
 
That's fine, but what this particular study shows is that wearing AGATT doesn't significantly lower your risk of external injuries. Granted, as stated, we don't know what they deem appropriate, but you guys are just saying you wouldn't want to get hurt, which is fine, neither would I.

If you said here's a study that refutes that claim then I would be more convinced. Like I said, there's always risk of bad stuff happening, but for this study's sample, risks were relatively equal...
 
spmcleod said:
That's fine, but what this particular study shows is that wearing AGATT doesn't significantly lower your risk of external injuries. Granted, as stated, we don't know what they deem appropriate, but you guys are just saying you wouldn't want to get hurt, which is fine, neither would I.

If you said here's a study that refutes that claim then I would be more convinced. Like I said, there's always risk of bad stuff happening, but for this study's sample, risks were relatively equal...
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a study done where all the geared up guys had full leathers, and all the track fixings VS the average joe with just a jacket and half helmet.

Doesn't mean that they will do that study though.
deal2.gif
 
Also markedly missing is all the unreported accidents where nobody went to hospital.
 
Some other neat findings:

The factors which were associated with significantly increased crash risk after adjustment for potential confounding factors were:

age under 25 (compared with age 35 or over)
never married
unlicensed
experienced off-road rider before gaining on-road licence
having fewer years of on-road riding experience (after adjustment for BAC)
ride less than 3 days per week - this may be an artefact of the study design
having completed a beginner course compared with an advanced course
BAC>.05 (odds ratio of 38) - 13% of crashed riders for whom BAC was known had BAC>.05 compared with less than 1% of control riders
BAC>.00 (odds ratio of 5)
consumed alcohol in the previous 12 hours (odds ratio of 2)
not wearing a helmet (2% of crashed riders and 1% of controls)
Click to expand...

Nonetheless, look at some other aspects of the findings: severity and patterns of injury did not vary as a function of the speed limit where the accident occurs. This might indicate, for example, that accidents occur at the same speed, i.e., motorcyclists at high speed brake or slow down before impact, or that an accident is more likely to occur on congested highway traffic.

By the way, what the stuff about "adjusting for BAC" means is that the type of person who is likely to ride with a BAC over 0 is also the kind of person likely to engage in other dangerous behaviours such as not wearing proper clothing or wearing no helmet / non-full face helmet. If they didn't control for BAC, that would have skewed the results away from a proper comparison of one helmet vs. another in the same type of rider.

Also:

70% of pillions in crashes were female, 57% of control pillions
Click to expand...

I think what this means is that women cause motorcycle accidents.
 
CHARACTERISTICS OF CASES
  • more than two-thirds on curves
  • there was no evidence of braking at 85% of sites

Thank goodness they knew not to brake in the corners!


clean motorcycles were mostly in good or excellent mechanical condition, whereas most of the motorcycles in poor mechanical condition were dirty

I always suspected this, now I know; Adventure riding kills!



position on roadway - younger riders and riders with training less likely to travel in the left-hand wheel track and more likely to travel in the right-hand wheel track (safer)

This is great, except we already learned earlier in the study that those under 25 and those with training statistically crash more often :/


response to tailgating - learner and probationary riders and riders with training less likely to speed up

Another myth debunked; training is just as useless as wearing gear


using the horn - more by experienced riders

right on! - there's experience for ya! Why take evasive action when you can sound your horn.


inexperienced and trained riders more likely to have practised emergency braking and/or counter-steering in the last six months, riders with probationary licences were the most confident about performing sudden swerves in emergency situations

Oh my, where do we go with this one. Apparantly from what we have learned this group trains themselves to incredible peak, only to ram into the first car they see in a curve without swerving or touching their brakes?



Ok then, in short, what we have learned is:
If you ride a motorcycle that has travelled less than 5000km on a Friday in an Urban area and the bike is dirty and isn't yours and you're wearing a black helmet, are under 25, never married, unlicensed, experienced off road rider who rides less than 3 days per week having completed a beginner course carrying a female pillion riding a motorcycle with an engine capacity in excess of 750cc and not on your way to work you are probably ****ed.

Yeah, this study has taught me one thing; Nothing.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom