Modern Buddy

Whether you wear a helmet or not or what kind is your business. You are not an idiot if you don't wear one or a genius if you do.
At another forum members posted pics of helmets worn when they crashed. It was very helpful to people asking what kind of helmet they should buy. No, they weren't all full face helmets. There were a few comments about injuries related to helmet style as well as injuries prevented. Very convincing. No humanoid pics, just the helmets.

Anyone care to show your post crash helmet?

Luckily I have not been in a crash. I am not a gear crazy guru, but I use a full face helmet (and gloves). I figure I would hate something jabbing me in the face, or dragging it across the pavement and living with that scarring. My legs and arms I figure I could live with scarring. Friends do think I overkill it.

NSR: Most people who consider themselves a genius, usually are not.

Luckily I haven't had a crash either. I do wear a full face helmet. I have gloves and a mesh jacket but it's been so hot I can't stand to wear them.

luckyleighton wrote:
NSR: Most people who consider themselves a genius, usually are not.

Does that mean since I know I'm not a genius then I really am?

this is the picture that David Hough uses in Proficient Motorcycling.

Well, obviously I am NOT a genius. Would you mind intrepreting this diagram?

It outlines the impact points by percentage from accidents....so for example 19.4% of people get hit in the left chin when they wreck.

So when you look at it it is illustrating something like 1/3 of accidents damage the chin area.

OScoot! wrote:Well, obviously I am NOT a genius. Would you mind intrepreting this diagram?

It's from a book called Proficient Motorcycling by David Hough that is often recommended here. I'm not sure of the source of his study but this diagram shows impact points on the face by percentage.

It is often used to show that parts of the face (chin) that are left uncovered by even 3/4 helmets are some of the most often impacted.

DennisD is this the kind of thing you were looking for in this thread? I think you basically wanted pictures of post-crash helmets, right?

EDIT: sorry for the redundant post. Luckyleighton beat me to it, which is, in fact, why they call him luckyleighton.

Not mine, but a couple of the many images that can be found around the Interweb.



The pics of my helmet from my crash aren't so dramatic. It was a 1/2 helmet with a visor (not a shield), but you could see that my exposed face was inches from hitting the pavement. Oof!

These are definitely interesting, but they cause me to question the meaning of previous diagrams.

Comparing these photos to the diagrams, you clearly see that multiple areas of the helmets were impacted. The diagrams make it seem as though there is one only point of impact per helmet.

So, the diagrams must represent the percentage of all impacts, allowing for multiple impacts in one crash. Meaning, the percentage of accidents resulting in an impact in any area is probably higher than what is shown in the diagram.

Does that make sense?

n00b4life wrote:These are definitely interesting, but they cause me to question the meaning of previous diagrams.

Comparing these photos to the diagrams, you clearly see that multiple areas of the helmets were impacted. The diagrams make it seem as though there is one only point of impact per helmet.

So, the diagrams must represent the percentage of all impacts, allowing for multiple impacts in one crash. Meaning, the percentage of accidents resulting in an impact in any area is probably higher than what is shown in the diagram.

Does that make sense?

When you're rolling, sliding, boucing, rebounding or otherwise being launched all percentages and diagrams go out the window. Then, there is only you.

DennisD is this the kind of thing you were looking for in this thread? I think you basically wanted pictures of post-crash helmets, right?

Yeah, I wanted pictures of members' helmets who had crashed. I realize now that there are probably not a large number as many here are probably newer riders mixed in with some long timers. Hopefully they won't ever have those pics.

armacham wrote:

this is the picture that David Hough uses in Proficient Motorcycling.

Those percentages were derived from the MAIDs study done on motorcycle crashes in Europe. They studied almost 1000 crashes and derived the data not only for the initial impact points shown in the picture but also a wide range of other things to do with motorcycle accidents. At least I am pretty sure it was the MAIDs study. I know it was a European study for sure.

Ok, no pics (hopefully I'll never have pics), but...for all you who want to relive your undergrad/grad days, here's a nifty journal article entitled:

Motorcycle rider conspicuity and crash related injury: case-control study

The objective of the study was "to investigate whether the risk of motorcycle crash related injuries is associated with the conspicuity of the driver or vehicle." Interesting point? Using reflective clothing and white/light colored helmets can "considerably" reduce motorcycle crash related injury and death.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7444/857

You don't need a subscription to read the entire article. The abstract gets the point across for those with short attention spans.

http://2strokebuzz.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=787

That's not me, but it's a good photo. From a crash in the Cleveland Metroparks ride at Amerivespa 05. Rider going probably 35 or so, run off the road, by (iirc) a van passing them through the center of a blind turn, then swerving right when they saw oncoming traffic.

To over-simplify, in case I am not making the point clearly, let's say that you interview four people after their crashes and they report the following impacts:

1 - crown, forehead, shield, chin
2 - cheek, shield, chin
3 - chin, cheek
4 - back of bead, cheek chin

Now, these do not perfectly match the diagram sections, but you get the idea.

In this case, 8% of the impacts were on the chin, 8% on the back of the head, 8% on the forehead, etc, with 33% of the impacts on the chin.

The reality, though, is that 100% of the accidents above resulted in impacts to the chin.

Anyone else find yourself reciting the litany against fear from Dune while riding?
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

helps me through some of the turns or that time I found myself merging on the interstate

I always wear a 3/4 helmet without a face sheild. I'm wondering if that's enough. Although in Utah LOTS of folks drive all sorts of two-wheeled vehicles without protective head gear (well maybe they're wearing that DOT approved bandana).

my helmet has a teensy weensy scratch on the side, not that interesting to post it up, unless ya'll want to see

illnoise wrote:http://2strokebuzz.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=787

That's not me, but it's a good photo. From a crash in the Cleveland Metroparks ride at Amerivespa 05. Rider going probably 35 or so, run off the road, by (iirc) a van passing them through the center of a blind turn, then swerving right when they saw oncoming traffic.

This is pretty interesting because it was a low speed crash. Sort of undermines those "it's only a 50cc" or the "I ride under 45 most of the time" arguments.

n00b4life wrote:To over-simplify, in case I am not making the point clearly, let's say that you interview four people after their crashes and they report the following impacts:

1 - crown, forehead, shield, chin
2 - cheek, shield, chin
3 - chin, cheek
4 - back of bead, cheek chin

Now, these do not perfectly match the diagram sections, but you get the idea.

In this case, 8% of the impacts were on the chin, 8% on the back of the head, 8% on the forehead, etc, with 33% of the impacts on the chin.

The reality, though, is that 100% of the accidents above resulted in impacts to the chin.

I think the diagram (source: Dietmar Otte, Hannover Medical University, Dept. of Traffic Accident Research, Germany) illustrates that in their study, these parts of the helmets were damaged in XY% of the accidents. So top of the head, .4%. Right side of shield, 5.5%. Chin, combined, 34.6%.

In your sample, chin would be 100%…?

enzomatic wrote:Anyone else find yourself reciting the litany against fear from Dune while riding?
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

helps me through some of the turns or that time I found myself merging on the interstate

Yes, particularly after a crash.

skullmechanic wrote:I always wear a 3/4 helmet without a face sheild. I'm wondering if that's enough. Although in Utah LOTS of folks drive all sorts of two-wheeled vehicles without protective head gear (well maybe they're wearing that DOT approved bandana).

Enough for what? I'm not sure what you are asking. Is a 3/4 helmet as safe as a full helmet? No. Are you as safe as you want to be in a 3/4 helmet with no face shield? Only you can really answer that.

dooglas wrote:Are you as safe as you want to be in a 3/4 helmet with no face shield? Only you can really answer that.

That's what I was implying. I am questioning my own safety precautions.

I think that we all know that riding any two-wheeled vehicle increases our risk of being injured. Figuring out what we are going to do to minimize that risk can be a big consideration -- one that might get challenged from time to time.

Interestingly, I think that personality traits have a lot to do with how much risk we take. Which is why I oppose my state's law which does NOT require helmets. I don't think that personality traits and personal preference should decide the most basic safety precaution(s).

skullmechanic wrote:I think that we all know that riding any two-wheeled vehicle increases our risk of being injured. Figuring out what we are going to do to minimize that risk can be a big consideration -- one that might get challenged from time to time.

You're right on here. I am definitely one of those who never considered a full face when I started riding. I hadn't given gear much thought at all, really. Having a crash and frequenting the forums (threads like this one) changed my mind about my half helmet (I was wearing an armored jacket by then).

skullmechanic wrote:Interestingly, I think that personality traits have a lot to do with how much risk we take. Which is why I oppose my state's law which does NOT require helmets. I don't think that personality traits and personal preference should decide the most basic safety precaution(s).

Ahem… From the Posting Guidelines…

Helmet Laws
Helmet laws, and whether they should or should not exist, are a prohibited topic. It's a divisive issue, and arguing about it in this forum will not accomplish anything nor will it change anyone's mind. Everyone is welcome to wear a helmet or not wear a helmet, as their laws and desires permit; arguing about whether it's good or just or smart is pointless.

Whoops!

Sorry, Eric. Thanks for the notice about forum policy. Obviously, I didn't read carefully. Sorry, again, for jumping on the soap box.

Makes me happy that I have a FFH

I could not give a rats behind what people wear if anything at all.

This is my Arai helmet after I went long ways over a Chevy Caprice a number of years ago. Notice the white paint on the face shield from the car. Had I not worn a FF helmet or if I had been wearing a 3/4 helmet or a half helmet, that would have been my face impacting the car. I doubt I would have had much of my jaw left. I have not worn it in years, I just keep it on a bookcase now.



I post this also for the person that posted in a different thread that it was not necessary to wear a FF and that a 3/4 provided enough protection. I chose not to respond then as it probably would have gotten me kicked off the forum.

Dave

One of the instructors at my MSF class this weekend, showed us his cracked ARAI full face SNELL helmet. He was on a rice rocket on the freeway and got clipped by a car. They said he literally got thrown under an 18 wheeler. Witnesses claimed 7 tires rolled over the helmet. There were major cracks in the top and severe scrapes on the chip and face. He got draged down the road a bit, and is still having to get skin graphs on his legs...2 years after the fact...

He was suprised they did not cut the helmet off his head. Now, the instructors all have a stickers on their helmets instructing EMS to leave the helmet on, in case of an accident, to prevent paralysis....

It also should be noted, that any helmet impact should be closely inspected. Even dropping the helmet off a table. The helmets are meant to crack to spread the load around, and even though you don't see it, the helmets safety and effectiveness could have been compromised...

Note: I was interrupted while posting and accidentally hit submit rather than preview, so am editing to make a bit more clear.

ericalm wrote:

n00b4life wrote:To over-simplify, in case I am not making the point clearly, let's say that you interview four people after their crashes and they report the following impacts:

1 - crown, forehead, shield, chin
2 - cheek, shield, chin
3 - chin, cheek
4 - back of bead, cheek chin

Now, these do not perfectly match the diagram sections, but you get the idea.

In this case, 8% of the impacts were on the chin, 8% on the back of the head, 8% on the forehead, etc, with 33% of the impacts on the chin.

The reality, though, is that 100% of the accidents above resulted in impacts to the chin.

I think the diagram (source: Dietmar Otte, Hannover Medical University, Dept. of Traffic Accident Research, Germany) illustrates that in their study, these parts of the helmets were damaged in XY% of the accidents. So top of the head, .4%. Right side of shield, 5.5%. Chin, combined, 34.6%.

The numbers add up to 100%. If it were that these parts of the helmets were damaged in X% of the accidents, then (as all these pictures show damage to multiple parts of the helmet) adding them all together would be much higher than 100. I.e., out of 100 helmets, we found that 80 of helmets had damage to the chin, 50 had damage to the face shield, 5 had damage to the top of the head, etc. Since the total of the numbers listed is 100, they are clearly not calculating the percentage of helmets where that area was damaged.

These numbers show the relative likelihood of a particular area in comparison to other areas. Their numbers might show the place of first impact, rather than all the damage from sliding or rolling or secondary impacts. Or they might take each damaged area as a unique impact, as noob4life suggests.

ericalm wrote: In your sample, chin would be 100%…?

He's showing four "accidents," with multiple places of damage to the helmet. All four had damage in the chin area, so in 100% of these "accidents" there was damage to the chin area of the helmet.

My book is packed away (I just moved this weekend), or I would look it up and report the exact wording about the diagram. But I think this is a very good point to note:

The numbers show a comparison between the parts of the helmet, NOT how likely any one part is to be damaged in a single accident.

In other words, it shows that the chin has the highest ratio of impacts. But it DOES NOT show that the right chin (with a rating of 19.4%) is unscathed in the reverse 80.6% of accidents.

statistics are confusing.

Heh—I didn't bother adding up the percentages.

That's actually a somewhat more confusing way of doing this (for my brain) because it's based on probability rather than actual impacts/damage. It also doesn't fully illustrate the likelihood of multiple impacts. Your head can bounce!

It also shows this diagram is widely misunderstood because I checked it using numerous online sources. That's actually not all that surprising, though.

ericalm wrote: That's actually a somewhat more confusing way of doing this (for my brain) because it's based on probability rather than actual impacts/damage. It also doesn't fully illustrate the likelihood of multiple impacts. Your head can bounce!

It also shows this diagram is widely misunderstood because I checked it using numerous online sources. That's actually not all that surprising, though.

Yeah, I work in communications for a science agency... the gap between them (those who do the studies) and us (the average joe) in terms of communications is huge. Sadly, the way scientists present information often fails to convey to us the real impact of their findings.

Hi, while my helmet doesn't have the dramatic look of the Caberg above, the visor and right side mounts for the modular hinge point were both broken off. Looks a bit deceptive, but there's nothing holding that screw in place. Inside the helmet the metal hook on the right side was also bent out of shape a little. Also not so clear in the image, but just near the sticker at the front above the visor is a large fracture (looks like a black line)

I was worried about the seat belt style chin strap, but that held up so well it took me about 10 minutes to unhook.

While I make no arguments about helmet types, for me at least, I've moved on to the more solid full faced variety.

I managed to hit a dog doing about 80 kilometres per hour and tumbled down the road. Fractured my thumb and tore a ligament in my first metacarpal. Full safety gear so no other damage to me, bike was a bit of a mess.

Unfortunately here in the Philippines innocent bystanders have no clue about first aid. All I wanted to do was crouch on my arms and knees in a large mud pool off to the side of the road while the searing pain eased. These bipedal onlookers figured I was dead so they started nudging me with their toes, picking me up by my spine protector and dropping me, grabbing my arm, shaking it violently, then asking if it hurt.

The image of the helmet was taken at the front of some small cockroach infested excuse for a hospital. Fortunately the staff were far more professional.

Good to hear you came out of it Ok. Sorry to hear of your spill and damage. Lucky you were wearing full gear. 80km/hr is a scary speed to go down. Yikes!

Thanks My wife wanted me to sell it all off and even found a buyer. I managed to mutter out 'excuse me?', and in the next instant I had a set of keys in hand for the back yard dog house. This was to become my place of residence for the next several days. Fortunately I got to keep the bike with a few concessions about night time riding, and I think I still have around 350 hours left as sole audience member at the wrong end of lecture city.

Safety kit definitely saved my backside.