Triumphrat

Tarmac

Back on topic.... Did I miss the part about open faced helmets? From what I saw the # factor was booze....

* 145 helmets worn by riders and pillions were inspected
* over 50% were black or "dark"
* 20% of visors were tinted
* the average age was four years, with 16% more than 5 years old and so may no longer have been performing optimally
* more than 80% had obvious signs of damage, mostly scratches but some fractures
* in 43% the interior padding was visibly worn or compressed

__________________
Tarmac
Where the rubber meets the road

Tarmac

is the is?

# 4% of all injured motorcyclists had severe head injuries
# 3 of the 5 motorcyclists not wearing helmets sustained head injuries
# facial injuries were uncommon and not significantly more common among those wearing open face helmets than full face helmets (8% versus 4%)

The big flaw in this data is that it dosn't even count crashes where no one died. What about the guy who dumps his bike, ripps his jaw off and lives?

Example: I low sided my Suzuki DR-350 after hitting wet pavement while making a low speed (25mph?) turn. I landed dead on the chin bar of my MX style full faced helmet. I slid about 25 feet on my face. I got up, dusted my self off, and finished my drive to work.
Theres no way the crash would have killed me, but that helmet saved me from getting my jaw broken, teeth knocked out and a real nice case of facial road rash.

__________________
Tarmac
Where the rubber meets the road

Nochicanes

This needs some clarification-

"after adjustment for BAC, there was no significant increase in risk associated with wearing an open face helmet compared to a full face helmet "

Relative to what? Risk of spinal cord injury, death, smash face, etc...

__________________
I'm old enough to know the score
Young enough to want more, more, more

rickykarate99

"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." The study wasn't just for fatals; it included any crash where a rider or pillion was taken to one of the hospitals. In my 20 years of riding, I've had many crashes and only ended up in the hospital once. But that one time statistically was a high-occurrence wreck (fracture of tibial plateau, the platform for the knee -- this was caused by flipping through the air forward before landing on my back, the force of the flips then whipping my leg straight too powerfully for the bone to handle). My full-face helmet had pretty rough scratches on the back, and I rung my bell pretty good (kept repeating the same questions, etc.), but I'm not sure a half-shell or 3/4 with goggles would have served me any worse.

The study is interesting because it questions a few of the things that generally careful bikers like us believe in -- always wearing protective clothing, full face helmets, etc. I'm too used to always wearing protective clothing for that to likely ever change (although in my teens I remember riding in flip-flops, shorts and a t-shirt -- yes I was one of those idiots), but it really is nice to wear a smaller helmet sometimes. Regardless of the study, I feel when I'm wearing a DOT approved half-shell with goggles that I'm less protected, so I take it easier. The whole acceptable-risk thing is a tough call -- if we really wanted to be safe, we'd drive Volvos and sell our motorcycles altogether. But none of us are willing to do that. I'm not willing to ride without protective clothing and some form of helmet, and prefer to ride with 0.00 blood alcohol (but have ridden after work with a beer in me, and when younger rode with more than that). That's my acceptable level of risk -- anybody else?

__________________
Nel vino et veritas.

DaveC

When I told a friend that I was getting a motorcycle, he said make sure to get a full face helmet. Of course I asked why and he said that in his last accident (the one that got him to quit riding), he was knocked unconscious by his helmet's chin bar. There was no damage except for a slight soreness in his jaw that left after a few days. Without the chin bar, he would likely have needed radical reconstructive surgery and would have literally been a different man.

My son-in-law is an ER doctor and I could go into some gruesome stories, but I won't. Suffice to say, your imagination wouldn't do them justice.

Dave

__________________

Dave

Tarmac

Gawd Dammit! Thats what I get for trying to read a technical document at 3:00am. Looks like my point is ALL WRONG!!!

I must now find a new leg to stand on :???:

Hmmm...

..The data comes from Australia, and as everyone knows Australia is inhabited entirly by criminals, so clearly we can not trust the data.

Now, where'ld I put that Iocane powder?

__________________
Tarmac
Where the rubber meets the road

Wombat

Exactly why I left...... too much competition.

Plus a whole new audience for my lame old jokes :P

Bob

__________________
Bob

Click to see My Photo Album

Age is of no importance, unless you are a cheese.

Nochicanes

Yo Tarmac...Got Nomex?

__________________
I'm old enough to know the score
Young enough to want more, more, more

Tarmac

Actually I do.
:flam:

btw: rent "The Prince's Bride"... then you'll get my joke about the Aussies

__________________
Tarmac
Where the rubber meets the road

cafestyle

Hey that's discrimination....
Criminal data is just as valid!!

:razz: :razz: :razz: