Full Face helmets may contribute to fatalities?

[exskibum]

Anyone know anything about or have any thoughts on this study that appears to conclude that full face helmets with rigid face bars may actually contribute to fatalities that may not occur with a flexible face bars or open face helmets?

https://www.floridaabate.com/Library/Librar...cial_injury.htm

Recall this discussion of statistical incidences of impacts to the head in motorcycle accidents:

https://www.fjrforum.com/forum//index.php?s...=101089&hl=

 

[wfooshee]

So they'd rather completely lose the lower jaw!??!?!?!

I think the study was done to have a look at how certain injuries have occured, maybe with the goal of improving helmet design, even improving helmet fastener design. The biker's "rights" group is trying to say that helmets are causing injuries, thus dangerous. By implication they would like you to think that the rider could be safer without the helmet, even though the study is not a comparison of helmeted vs. non-helmeted injuries, simply a study of injuries caused by the chin and chin strap parts of the helmet.

I really have a hard time thinking that someone fatally injured in a motorcycle accident who suffered an impact to the lower part of the face would have not been fatally injured if unhelmeted. I didn't see anything about the injuries "may not occur with a flexible face bar or open face helmet." I see language about facial fractures absorbing energy that would otherwise be transmitted to the brain, and an implication that the helmet fails to absorb those energies and transmits them directly to the skull base. While that energy may indeed be transmitted thusly, I would submit that the level of impact required to cause a fatal fracture at the base of the skull would still cause a fatal injury in an unhelmeted rider.

Aside from that, I have had a crash with a fairly low-energy impact to the chin bar, and I am absolutely certain that today I can eat freely and speak clearly because I had a full-face helmet on my head.

 

[cougar8000]

you got to be ******* kidding me, right????? It got to be a ******* joke. It is Friday after all.

 

[Silent]

Statistics prove that you can proove anything with statistics.

 

[cougar8000]

^%$&^%$&%#$%&^. After they have rebel the helmet law their fatality rate went up. Sometimes I REALLY REALLY hate ABATE.

 

[Ignacio]

Friday aside...I have to admit there's something interesting there exskibum.

Not a "I'm going to not wear helmets including full-face ones anymore" kind of interesting.

But more a "hmmmmm.....I've hit the chin piece before while walking through the garage and the lifting force on my head kinda felt strange......maybe that's what they're talking about in an accident.......I hope my brain stem doesn't tear off and somebody might do more study and see if it can be validated" kind of interesting.

 

[exskibum]

I really have a hard time thinking that someone fatally injured in a motorcycle accident who suffered an impact to the lower part of the face would have not been fatally injured if unhelmeted. I didn't see anything about the injuries "may not occur with a flexible face bar or open face helmet." I see language about facial fractures absorbing energy that would otherwise be transmitted to the brain, and an implication that the helmet fails to absorb those energies and transmits them directly to the skull base. While that energy may indeed be transmitted thusly, I would submit that the level of impact required to cause a fatal fracture at the base of the skull would still cause a fatal injury in an unhelmeted rider.

Well, that's what I was wondering, too. Maybe I didn't read it carefully enough (twice), but I don't see a reliable methodology for comparing the amount of force sustained to cause the full face chinstrap fatalities it cites as compared to the same amount of force in an open face hit in the same area. Nor do I see an analysis of the effect of where and from what direction the impact is sustained. E.g., JB's referenced post shows statistics on where such hits occur. Which of those cause this fatal chin bar injury effect, is there a difference in force necessary to that result at those locations, and how does that compare with severity of injury in an open face context?

It's interersting that they seem to have discovered an exaggerated chin strap caused injury effect with full face helmets with rigid chin bars, but the unanswered question seems to be: "what would have been the results without the chin bar?" That a study could be used to push an agenda certainly wouldn't surprise me. That's why I asked if you guys knew anything about this. If fact, when was it done**, and has there been any follow up or criticism of it?

**Last date I see in the endnotes is 1989.

EDIT to add: IF this was thoroughly investigated by helmet makers (and experts for the attorneys who sue them), wouldn't modifications like partially bungied straps (enough slack to take the force but keep the helmet on in a chin bar hit) be something that'd be on the market in nearly every helmet?

 

[Ignacio]

If fact, when was it done**, and has there been any follow up or criticism of it?


**Last date I see in the endnotes is 1989.

Concur. '89 or '90. Old study.

Here's something more recent that references the Cooter material...in 2007....and seems to be more updated on chin bar testing methodology including a Snell reference....if you want to believe those upside down Aussies.

 

[wfooshee]

The study referenced by Iggy specifically states that it has in mind the possibility of having helmets cope better with such impacts, i.e. not "helmets are killing us!!!"

If the helmet protects the entire head, and is fastened securely to the head, then a severe enough impact is going to affect the area where the head attaches to the rest of the body. That would be the base of the skull, or the neck. The only way to change that would be to attach the helmet to the body, the way a HANS device does, but the HANS device is not intended to carry impact forces from the head to the body, but rather to limit the motion of an otherwise unrestrained appendage. A racing driver rarely actually hits his head on anything, but rather his head is tossed about by the impacts to his vehicle, with neck injury the most obvious resulting possibility.

As motorcyclists existing HANS devices are too restrictive. Sitting out in the airstream atop our vehicle, we need more range of motion in all three axes than a HANS device would allow. You have to raise the head if you're down over the tank, you have to look over (or under) your shoulder to change lanes, you have to look down at your foot when you stop. To brace head impacts with the body we'd need something like a HANS device, but with inertia reels on the attachments. But what happens if those attaching cables catch on something as we slide merrily alongside our failed steed?

 

[DocDanDC]

Seems like it was written to improve overall helmet design not to say that full face was a bad thing but could be improved upon. I think they are "trying to re-invent the wheel".

 

[Fred W]

Considering the source (ABATE), makes me feel like I am reading an oil "study" from AMSOIL.

 

[evil_henchman]

[SIZE=14pt]In contrast, motorcyclists killed from anterior craniofacial impact whilst wearing full-face helmets with rigid face-bars had sustained fatal skull base fracturing in the absence of significant facial trauma.[/SIZE]

In other words, chin plant with full face helmet = broken neck. In the early 80's when full face helmets first became the rage first responders referred to them as neck breakers and there was actually some effort made to ban them. I have a friend and co-worker who survived a broken neck compliments of a full face helmet. You could argue the merits of massive facial injury vs. fatal broken necks but at the end of the day, riding is just inherently dangerous.

 

[HaulinAshe]

Most young MX racers can be seen wearing padded yokes (or collars) between their chest protectors and the helmet base for exactly that reason. It helps limit the snapping action caused when the chinbar strikes the ground and has so much leverage/force over a smaller neck.

I've considered the same type protection for the street, but it would limit head turning so much that the benefit is not worth the reduced range of motion and subsequent loss of visual range.

Still...

 

[happyPuppy]

I do not think it is that difficult to explain. Energy is created by the impact , it has to go somewhere. What appears to happen in some cases , is where the face and jaw took and absorbed most of the impact, the energy much like a knockout punch is transmitted to the upper neck area I suspect C1 through C5, Which would cause death or paralysis. Unknown are the variables ,such as the angle of impact and how likely are they to occur. It seems helmets could be made to take the same angle of impact and not allow the force to go linearly to the neck and instead be dissipated over the whole of the helmet. How? Well that is for engineers...

 

[RiderCoach Lar]

Considering the source (ABATE), makes me feel like I am reading an oil "study" from AMSOIL.

I completely agree, Fred. ABATE isn't exactly known for their objectiveness when it comes to helmet use.

 

[Honzo]

It's your funeral...you want the casket open or closed? Full face for me, thanks.

 

[FJRBluesman]

Po-leez! I'll also stick with my full face. Without it, I'd be having a hard time chewing from an old accident.

 

[wheatonFJR]

so I'm throwing my helmets away now...they're evil and will kill you if allowed a chance.

 

[Mizz Bustanut]

Statistics show, everyone will die . . . . . . . . eventually.

Hmmmm, is that a statistic I should believe? Well let's see, I know too many people that have graced this earth for various lengths of time and I have yet to meet or hear of anyone that has lived for more than let's say 110 years. So yes, my common sense says "Duh, I can believe that".

Let's think about where a statistic comes from, how they came to their conclusions and just who is it that funded the study.

It's amazing the crap that's out there that people will jump on the band wagon and say "Oh, it's true! There's been studies done to prove it." Well I want the info backing it up first before I take it with more than a grain of salt.

Think about it people, how many times have they claimed that studies show something was bad for you then months later "new" studies show "Oh, it's good for you" until a little while later when another group decides they're loosing money because of a "fraudulent claim" so all of a sudden it changes again. Give me a break.

<_< <_<