Interesting Accident Study - Helmet related

Forum Sponsor
just because something is counter-intuitive to what you may have thought doesn't make it wrong... they studied 222 accidents and over 1100 rides... how many have you studied for your rebuttal?

If you were to present a similar study with results that refute their claims I'd be all for reading it and making a logical assessment, but since your disputing their facts with your sarcastic opinion, I'll take the study...
 
i dunno... i still think that if i were to land on my face at 100km/h i would sustain more severe injuries if there was nothing between my face and the pavement.
 
spmcleod said:
just because something is counter-intuitive to what you may have thought doesn't make it wrong... they studied 222 accidents and over 1100 rides... how many have you studied for your rebuttal?

If you were to present a similar study with results that refute their claims I'd be all for reading it and making a logical assessment, but since your disputing their facts with your sarcastic opinion, I'll take the study...
Click to expand...

The numbers used for the sample makes the report statistically insignificant, it contradicts its own findings, consequently the conclusions are weak. it deserves a little sarcasm IMO, can you honestly say that none of what I wrote made you go hmmm? Do I really have to accept the findings because I haven't created a report? This report is not only counter intuitive, it's dangerous.
 
insert said:
i dunno... i still think that if i were to land on my face at 100km/h i would sustain more severe injuries if there was nothing between my face and the pavement.
Click to expand...

No definitely, but what it's essentially saying is that the chances of you landing on your face are fairly minor...

Carman, I definitely think there's some things on there that I wouldn't have thought, and you're right it is only one study... I just thought it was interesting and made me question things a little bit. A lot of times you'll see people belittling other people because they don't go AGATT or wear full face arai helmets and the like... this disputes that if you don't do that you will die, which is what a lot of people make it seem to be.

I just thought it provides a little context and a different perspective is all, and shouldn't be dismissed as there is lots of interesting information. But let's face it, if a semi swerves into our lane we're all effed no matter what we're wearing!
 
spmcleod said:
A lot of times you'll see people belittling other people because they don't go AGATT or wear full face arai helmets and the like...
Click to expand...

You know why?
Because if you make it the social norm to wear gear, it's then "cool" to wear gear.
This will get more people gearing up.

Nothing wrong with promoting safety.
 
spmcleod said:
No definitely, but what it's essentially saying is that the chances of you landing on your face are fairly minor...

Carman, I definitely think there's some things on there that I wouldn't have thought, and you're right it is only one study... I just thought it was interesting and made me question things a little bit. A lot of times you'll see people belittling other people because they don't go AGATT or wear full face arai helmets and the like... this disputes that if you don't do that you will die, which is what a lot of people make it seem to be.

I just thought it provides a little context and a different perspective is all, and shouldn't be dismissed as there is lots of interesting information. But let's face it, if a semi swerves into our lane we're all effed no matter what we're wearing!
Click to expand...

Nobody says that if you don't wear ATGATT then you'll die as soon as you touch a bike. By that logic, you'd die touching a bike no matter what you're wearing. In your first quoted statistic, there's a four percent spread between people wearing open face and full face helmets. If you take that figure at face value in a sample of 25 people wearing open face helmets, that's one extra person. Do you wanna be that guy?

I know I've taken rocks to the visor on my helmet, on the highway. That won't kill you, but it could disorient you enough to subsequently veer off the road or into another vehicle, which could kill you. Since the visor's a good idea anyway, might as well have the chin bar too. Same thing with gloves - and since I've bounced a bird or two off my chest, might as well have that jacket too.

There are people who rarely wear gear all the time, because they feel it dilutes their riding experience. They are accepting the risks. To not wear your gear because you think there is no point is not accepting the risks, it is denying them.
 
TwistedKestrel said:
There are people who rarely wear gear all the time, because they feel it dilutes their riding experience. They are accepting the risks. To not wear your gear because you think there is no point is not accepting the risks, it is denying them.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Those "minor" injuries can be chronic and expensive to treat as well, especially if they are dental.

Trust me, you don't want to know. EVER.

How about a new acronym? FFFFS!
 
This study definitely needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Somebody already pointed this out: this study does not necessarily include crashes where riders walked away with unreported injuries (i.e. likely uninjured).

Might as well conclude that 100% of fatal crashes resulted in fatalities... with or without a helmet!

Statistics can be very easily manipulated...
 
carman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lol, beat me to it.
 
It's also possible, that people with open face helmets ride slower, to avoid getting pelted with insects. I had my visor up a bit yesterday and took a well fed bug to the face. Argh.
 
Most of the crashes occurred in urban areas where the speed limit was less than 60 k/h. They examined 145 helmets all told around 2 weeks after the accident. Facial injuries were twice as likely in open face helmets. They only included people who volunteered to do the interviews etc. 33 of the interviews were with "proxies" and not the rider or pillon. More than half of people injured were not interviewed for one reason or another. 146 had their BAC taken, 22 were over .05. 17% of the helmets were open faced, which means 24 helmets were open faced. Heavyweight and waterproof materials were considered appropriate protective clothing equal to leather.
 
I witnessed a low speed (50-60 kmh) lowside in Tennessee last October. The rider was wearing leather jacket, textile pants, boots , gloves, and an HJC helmet.
He got up from his bike (with it's bent forks, shattered front wheel and destroyed rotors) and walked away without a mark or a bruise. His chinbar, faceshield, and right side of the helmet were a mess of roadrash. Had he not been wearing it, or had an open face lid on, at best he would look like a different person today.
 
Then he was wearing appropriate equipment.
I suggest the rider was pushing it to crash that hard and destroy the rotors on a low side solo incident.

No one is arguing that good equipment isn't useful and protects in some accidents.
It's just not as much protection as people think and I argue riders geared up tend to push the limits.
Which of course is fun but will lead to more solo accidents.
 
Hairpin turn, as tight as the forks of the credit, snuck up on him. Snuck up on each one of us, but he was the one who fell. Rotors and wheel were destroyed from hitting embankment on other side of the road.
 
MacDoc said:
Then he was wearing appropriate equipment.
I suggest the rider was pushing it to crash that hard and destroy the rotors on a low side solo incident.

No one is arguing that good equipment isn't useful and protects in some accidents.
It's just not as much protection as people think and I argue riders geared up tend to push the limits.
Which of course is fun but will lead to more solo accidents.
Click to expand...

Purely anecdotal but most people I see doing really stupid stuff (like wheelies in traffic) are wearing shorts and running shoes. Most people I see that are riding well are also well-geared.

I have had my share of spills and although most times the amount of gear was not terribly relevant to the outcome, there have been times that it saved me significant injury.

You may wish to rationalize your choice to not wear gear, but don't use flawed studies like this one to convince yourself that there is no real risk.

There was a reason why warriors in the middle ages would wear as much armour as they could afford. They didn't need a degree in statistical analysis to realize getting hit in the face with a brick hurts a lot. True, some poor buggers had to fight wearing next to nothing, but contrary to Dungeons and Dragons players' distorted views, it was not typically by choice.
 
I'm not arguing that there isn't a risk, of course there is. A lot of people are using faulty logic to argue that this study is useless... yes there are accidents that people get badly hurt in... I'm not saying there arent.

And I'm not trying to rationalize not wearing gear. I still think it's up to the person to do what they want. BUT, this shows that STATISTICALLY your are not at a SIGNIFICANTLY higher risk of getting badly injured in an accident then you are in appropriate gear. So, does this mean that you shouldn't worry about getting hurt? No, will proper gear stop you from getting road rash and getting hit in the face with birds? yes, it should. But in GENERAL, it would seem that wearing an open face helmet or jeans and a long sleeve shirt are not AS dangerous as A LOT of people make it out to be. That is all I'm saying.

Saying you saw a guy saved by his full face helmet is great, I'm glad he's okay. But that doesn't refute this study.
 
spmcleod said:
Saying you saw a guy saved by his full face helmet is great, I'm glad he's okay. But that doesn't refute this study.
Click to expand...

Anecdotal stories are nice but really, it's like people who justify smoking by saying that so-and-so's aunt smoked for 91 years and it hasn't killed her yet. :-) Well good for her..but there's some evidence out there that says it's bad for you..
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom