Expensive helmet necessary for slow riding?

[RubberSideDown]

The biggest risk I have noticed from step thru riders in Thailand and here in Malaysia is the complete disregard for their own safety with regards to road traffic awareness.

Hardly ever see a rider cover their blind spot before to change direction, as well simply to look into oncoming traffic when joining/crossing, a road or main road.

Then comes the poor excuses of helmets, flip flops, no gloves, shorts and T shirt, mobile phones, etc.

Most big bike riders I see are usually geared up and more road traffic aware, than the step thru (majority) riders.

I have no argument with the point Andre made that riding skills and situational awareness are the most important part of staying safe on the road- the problem is when those skills and awareness either let us down or we encounter a scenario where they can't help us and we (literally) hit the road- like you, I've walked away from crashes that could have seriously injured or incapacitated me because I was prepared from them- I'm a big proponent of dressing for the crash, rather than the ride, even though I believe the crash is rather unlikely. Andre chooses to often not wear a helmet at all- that's taking a chance way beyond his imagined benefits- it's his choice, but he's tossing it out like a recommendation rather than what it actually is, an unnecessary risk. There's a reason why LOS has the second-highest motorcycle fatality rate in the world, and it's due mostly to the riders themselves, even though they often like to blame the other traffic sharing the road, or are convinced their experience will save them (and experience often will save you, right up until the time it doesn't).

I concede that it's generally not practical to fully gear-up when you ride a scooter a short distance and use it as basic transportation, but a minimum of caution (like wearing a decent helmet, even a half-helmet) could be the difference between living and dying (that's not a dramatic statement- it's the fact of living in LOS)- there's never a good excuse (except laziness or ignorance) for not wearing some sort of helmet.

That said there are undeniable safety advantages to a full-face helmet, and- while there are valid reasons for not wearing one (it's not as warm, it's usually cheaper, etc), the reasons stated here (vision loss, hearing desensitization) aren't valid for a certified helmet- it's not like it's sealed and restrictive like a deep-sea diver's helmet- I can just barely see the edge of my. Shoei if I force my eyes to the extreme right or left- I have zero loss of peripheral vision (my helmet has never interfered with my field-of-view), and I can hear every thing that's going on around me.

The scope of this thread extended beyond riding a scooter where a smart rider needs to stay on the periphery of traffic due not not having the performance abilities to really keep up with it on an open road- on a big bike where you can ride in the thick of it and therefore have more exposure, I just can't see the rationale behind not fully preparing for a worst-case possibility- saying a full-face helmet won't let you 'smell' your surroundings is really just uninformed, and not giving a full-face helmet a fair try because of the mistaken impression that it will hinder your hearing and vision is taking an unnecessary risk for reasons that hold no validity.

If you don't agree with me, fine, and if that counts as a 'lecture', tough.

Edited March 19, 2014 by RubberSideDown

[soihok]

Agree 100%.

I would not consider wearing an open face, not after the accident I had.

[JonnyF]

^

I don't have to make those who choose to ride without helmets look like fools- they do that themselves.

You are coming across as a bit of a 'lecturer' though. You choose to ride a very fast bike in all the gear, others choose to cruise along at 40kph in jeans and a t-shirt. Personal choice.

FWIW I'm closer to you than 'them' in that I also ride a fairly quick bike and I wear decent gear, but if that cement truck u-turns in front of me at the last minute while I'm riding at high speed I'll be splattered across the road no matter what I am wearing. Unless you ride your 200hp bike close to the speed limit (which I doubt) then it might be a good idea to accept that you are taking a similar risk riding at high speed in your top of the range gear as the scooter rider in a cheap helmet riding to 711 at 40 kph.

Nothing is 100% effective- I already acknowledged that I take a risk by riding, but I choose not to compound that risk by not gearing-up.

Yes, I have a fast bike, but I would wear the same gear on any 'big bike'.

Sorry if you feel you're being 'lectured'- I'm arguing my point.

Note that the worst crash I ever had (as far as injury was concerned) was on a scooter at about 40kph- I wasn't properly geared-up, and I paid the price- I'd like to see someone else avoid what I went through.

I understand your point, I agree with a lot of it - you just seem to be making it over and over again based on what you consider to be an acceptable risk. And anyone who has a different opinion of what is an acceptable risk is ignorant or an idiot.

It's like when people come on here and say that riding a big bike at high speed is dangerous and we shouldn't do it. Well, they're right in that it's dangerous - but it's up to the individual if they're prepared to take the risk. You are prepared to take the risk as long as you are geared up, others would still consider the risk you take as unacceptably high. Maybe they should come on here and start telling you what you should be doing, over and over again?

If someone chooses not to break out the full leathers, spine protector and AlpineStars boots for a trip to 711 on their Honda Wave - up to them. I'm sure they understand that they'll get hurt if they crash.

Just because some people's level of 'acceptable risk' is higher or lower than your own does not make them ignorant or in need of educating.

[ginglee]

Your body can take a hammering- your head can't ...get the best helmet your money can afford.

[recom273]

I got to say .. a big thanks to the guys here, like RubberSideDown and anyone else with an experienced opinion and the dedication to say it how it is.

In the past year, through this forum i have seen a few images of people who think wearing a half helmet is fine, or who didnt worry to put on a pair gloves .. Everyday I see a different kid at school with road rash down their legs or kids who dont attend for a semester as they have 2 broken legs.

You dont have to read anyones opinions or even take notice .. you just have to take a look those images, from Thailand and then make your own mind up.

Edited March 20, 2014 by recom273

[RubberSideDown]

^

I don't have to make those who choose to ride without helmets look like fools- they do that themselves.

You are coming across as a bit of a 'lecturer' though. You choose to ride a very fast bike in all the gear, others choose to cruise along at 40kph in jeans and a t-shirt. Personal choice.

FWIW I'm closer to you than 'them' in that I also ride a fairly quick bike and I wear decent gear, but if that cement truck u-turns in front of me at the last minute while I'm riding at high speed I'll be splattered across the road no matter what I am wearing. Unless you ride your 200hp bike close to the speed limit (which I doubt) then it might be a good idea to accept that you are taking a similar risk riding at high speed in your top of the range gear as the scooter rider in a cheap helmet riding to 711 at 40 kph.

Nothing is 100% effective- I already acknowledged that I take a risk by riding, but I choose not to compound that risk by not gearing-up.

Yes, I have a fast bike, but I would wear the same gear on any 'big bike'.

Sorry if you feel you're being 'lectured'- I'm arguing my point.

Note that the worst crash I ever had (as far as injury was concerned) was on a scooter at about 40kph- I wasn't properly geared-up, and I paid the price- I'd like to see someone else avoid what I went through.

I understand your point, I agree with a lot of it - you just seem to be making it over and over again based on what you consider to be an acceptable risk. And anyone who has a different opinion of what is an acceptable risk is ignorant or an idiot.

It's like when people come on here and say that riding a big bike at high speed is dangerous and we shouldn't do it. Well, they're right in that it's dangerous - but it's up to the individual if they're prepared to take the risk. You are prepared to take the risk as long as you are geared up, others would still consider the risk you take as unacceptably high. Maybe they should come on here and start telling you what you should be doing, over and over again?

If someone chooses not to break out the full leathers, spine protector and AlpineStars boots for a trip to 711 on their Honda Wave - up to them. I'm sure they understand that they'll get hurt if they crash.

Just because some people's level of 'acceptable risk' is higher or lower than your own does not make them ignorant or in need of educating.

I never said it was an 'unacceptable risk', and I made the point that anyone had the right to make their own choice- what I said it's that's it's a foolish risk, based on my own experience and the experiences of others.

We all ride the same roads and are subject to many of the same potential scenarios regardless of our speed (and, in traffic, with 10hp or 200hp, you're generally moving at the around the same rate)- preparing yourself for that risk in terms of basic gear is as much a part of being a good rider as being able to exhibit a high level of skill. How I may or may not ride my fast bike may very well be a fair subject for discussion depending on the manner in which I do it (as has been well-proven by the comments received by others who have been willing to post videos of their accidents or close-calls), but at the moment that's an unknown, and only subject to your assumption- the risk of riding without a helmet or with a sub-par one regardless of vehicle type or riding ability is well-known.

As far as saying something 'over and over again', I've been responding to posters who bothered to respond to me directly, and I've been keeping to the basic theme of this thread (which has changed a bit from the OP).

Read it or don't, Jonny, and feel free to agree or disagree with what I've said, and I'd like to hear what people have to say about what I think, be it positive or negative (though I may respond in a fashion that rubs you the wrong way)- it's why I bother with this forum in the first place.

Edited March 20, 2014 by RubberSideDown

[AllanB]

I got to say .. a big thanks to the guys here, like RubberSideDown and anyone else with an experienced opinion and the dedication to say it how it is.

In the past year, through this forum i have seen a few images of people who think wearing a half helmet is fine, or who didnt worry to put on a pair gloves .. Everyday I see a different kid at school with road rash down their legs or kids who dont attend for a semester as they have 2 broken legs.

You dont have to read anyones opinions or even take notice .. you just have to take a look those images, from Thailand and then make your own mind up.

Enough brown-nosing for one day I think....

Why are you guys constantly drawing the distinction between wearing a racing helmet and no helmet at all?

No one is saying don't wear a helmet, the argument is whether to have the perceived slight advantage of a racing helmet, or the obvious advantage of all of your senses at their maximum, in order to avoid a possible accident, in a busy Thai town.

...And the comfort and ease of use that will encourage you to wear it, even on a short trip to the shops.

[RubberSideDown]

^

You don't realize that there's actually a big difference between a 'full-face helmet' (which incorporates the entire range of that type of helmet) and a 'racing helmet', which is a specific niche of small, light, and usually quite noisy helmets meant specifically for the track and made for maximum efficiency when worn in a full-tuck, and lacking most creature-comforts seen in more street-oriented helmets, and is generally meant to be worn for an hour or less at a time (though some people use them as their regular street helmet)- an example would be the Shoei X-12.

Helmets like the popular Shoei RF line or new GT-Air are geared specifically to offer a full field of vision, excellent venting, and other features to make it comfortable for all-day touring, and the nature of its shell shape makes it a poor choice for racing- they can, in fact, be worn in LOS quite comfortably, and offer about the best impact protection you can get in a helmet.

Edited March 20, 2014 by RubberSideDown

[BirdsandBooze]

This will throw the cat among the pigeons. Can`t say I am totally in agreement with the findings, but I`m not an expert either.

Wednesday, 05, Mar 2014 02:55

by David Weston

A study published in The Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery by a group of Brazilian researchers has concluded that an open-face helmet gives almost as little protection against facial injuries and brain trauma as not wearing a helmet at all.

The study looked at 253 motorcyclists who were victims of road incidents and suffered head and face injuries. They were all referred to outpatient treatment.

Of the motorists in the research, 156 patients did not wear a helmet, 51 wore open-face helmets and 46 people wore full-face helmets (despite the law in Brazil requiring motorcycle users to wear a form of protection).

The study found open-face helmets offered little protection against brain injury. Of the 156 riders without helmets, 108 suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI). That equates to 69.2% of patients.

Shockingly, 39 out of the 51 patients who wore an open-face helmet also suffered a brain injury. This is a mammoth 76.5% of people in the study, suggesting little or no difference between wearing an open-face helmet and nothing at all.

By comparison, only 24 of 46 (52.2%) of motorcyclists with a full-face helmet received a TBI.

A TBI is "defined as any period of loss of consciousness, any loss of memory for events immediately before or after the accident, any alteration in mental state at the time of the accident, or focal neurologic deficits".

The study divided the head into three horizontal sections, the mandible (jaw), the midface and the upper face and looked at the severity of injury and lacerations to the face.

Open-face helmets only offered protection to the upper face compared to riders with no helmet. The report found: "25 of 156 patients (16%) without crash helmets had fractures to the upper face compared with 2 of 51 patients (3.9%) with open-face helmets and 1 of 46 patients (2.2%) with full-face helmets."

If both TBI and facial injuries were combined, the results of the study were similar.

Protection Number Suffered facial fracture

With TBI (%)

No helmet 156 98 (62.82)

Full-face helmet 46 16 (34.78)

Open-face helmet 51 35 (68.83)

As the table shows, the percentage of riders who suffered both facial lacerations and brain injury while wearing an open-face helmet is similar to the number of people who were not wearing a helmet at all.

The study concluded:

"This evidence supports the idea that the open-face helmets offer little or no protection against TBI, probably because the structure of the helmet does not absorb enough energy from the impact; thus the energy is dissipated directly onto the face.

"In the present study population, full-face helmets offered more protection than open-face helmets, and motorcyclists wearing open-face helmets and unhelmeted riders had more severe facial injuries.

"In conclusion, the use of full-face helmets to prevent or decrease craniomaxillofacial injuries is recommended."

[ATF]

You may be driving less than 40kph but a pick-up truck traveling at over 100kph could T-Bone you or hit you from behind or front on. Accidents happen when they are not expected. That's why they are accidents. I bless my Alpinestars SMX PLUS boots everyday because once when I was tuning my bike my foot slipped into the dyno rollers when it was doing over 100kph. Didn't feel a thing, but if I had ordinary shoes or flip flops on I could have easily lost my foot or faced a 500,000.00 Baht hospital bill. Too much protection is never enough. God Bless.

[andreandre]

The biggest risk I have noticed from step thru riders in Thailand and here in Malaysia is the complete disregard for their own safety with regards to road traffic awareness.

Hardly ever see a rider cover their blind spot before to change direction, as well simply to look into oncoming traffic when joining/crossing, a road or main road.

Then comes the poor excuses of helmets, flip flops, no gloves, shorts and T shirt, mobile phones, etc.

Most big bike riders I see are usually geared up and more road traffic aware, than the step thru (majority) riders.

I have no argument with the point Andre made that riding skills and situational awareness are the most important part of staying safe on the road- the problem is when those skills and awareness either let us down or we encounter a scenario where they can't help us and we (literally) hit the road- like you, I've walked away from crashes that could have seriously injured or incapacitated me because I was prepared from them- I'm a big proponent of dressing for the crash, rather than the ride, even though I believe the crash is rather unlikely. Andre chooses to often not wear a helmet at all- that's taking a chance way beyond his imagined benefits- it's his choice, but he's tossing it out like a recommendation rather than what it actually is, an unnecessary risk. There's a reason why LOS has the second-highest motorcycle fatality rate in the world, and it's due mostly to the riders themselves, even though they often like to blame the other traffic sharing the road, or are convinced their experience will save them (and experience often will save you, right up until the time it doesn't).

I concede that it's generally not practical to fully gear-up when you ride a scooter a short distance and use it as basic transportation, but a minimum of caution (like wearing a decent helmet, even a half-helmet) could be the difference between living and dying (that's not a dramatic statement- it's the fact of living in LOS)- there's never a good excuse (except laziness or ignorance) for not wearing some sort of helmet.

That said there are undeniable safety advantages to a full-face helmet, and- while there are valid reasons for not wearing one (it's not as warm, it's usually cheaper, etc), the reasons stated here (vision loss, hearing desensitization) aren't valid for a certified helmet- it's not like it's sealed and restrictive like a deep-sea diver's helmet- I can just barely see the edge of my. Shoei if I force my eyes to the extreme right or left- I have zero loss of peripheral vision (my helmet has never interfered with my field-of-view), and I can hear every thing that's going on around me.

The scope of this thread extended beyond riding a scooter where a smart rider needs to stay on the periphery of traffic due not not having the performance abilities to really keep up with it on an open road- on a big bike where you can ride in the thick of it and therefore have more exposure, I just can't see the rationale behind not fully preparing for a worst-case possibility- saying a full-face helmet won't let you 'smell' your surroundings is really just uninformed, and not giving a full-face helmet a fair try because of the mistaken impression that it will hinder your hearing and vision is taking an unnecessary risk for reasons that hold no validity.

If you don't agree with me, fine, and if that counts as a 'lecture', tough.

e, but he's tossing it out like a recommendation rather than what it actually is, an unnecessary risk

Not at all,and i really wish you would stop mosquoting my POV's..i have only ever said that it has been, and will be MYCHOICE to do so...never a recomendation anywhere...Its a forum mate..we all have POV's and opinions to post..you know my POV!

on the other hand you, yourself by ratting on about the benefits of your full face helmet being the saviour of all riders can and does give a false sense of over confidence to up and comming newbie riders.

I have seen and heard the BS..buy a new bike and ''make sure you buy a nice full face helmet to go with it" you will be safe from all and everything'' which is BS.. They roar off into the distance thinking [as you also appear to do that this mini minor on your head will make you invulnerable } Far from it...When your number is up, its up..end of!

I may well have been ''lucky'' in my riding life, as we all need to be, but i enjoy the act of riding a bike face in the wind..thats what freedom is all about [for me] Thats the way i do it , have done it, and will continue to do it..my choice and thats whats its all about..

You do it your way..fine by me that is YOUR choice...i'm not going to put shit on you for doing it and you need to stop dumping on others choices.

EDIT...I ran a course for bike rider survival training techniques a few years ago, because most 'schools' only taught riders how to pass the riding test...i did more than my bit to improve other riders chances whilst riding....

Most of the over confident hot heads who attended turned up on a powerful bike wearing every possible ''safety option' were generally were the least competent ,underskilled guys there...They really thought that the safety gear was all they needed....which,as you well know is totally wrong..

Edited March 20, 2014 by andreandre

[ATF]

Andre,

Of course you have the God given right to do whatever you want. You can drink and drive, take drugs whatever. However please ask yourself the question would you like your children to wear a helmet or not? I don't believe people are dumping on you, just concerned for your safety. I cringe everyday seeing people riding in shorts, flip flops no gloves, jacket or helmet. Over 90% of accidents happen at less than 40kph. I saw a female student fall off the back of a m/c taxi doing less than 20kph. She hit the back of her head on the tarmac and judging by the amount of blood I wouldn't expect she made it through.

We all make decisions everyday which affect the rest of our lives. May I suggest an alternative for you maybe a Moto Cross helmet with sunglasses?

[speedtripler]

i dont believe in 1/2 or 3/4 helmets

its got to be minimum dot rated or snell and a fully constructed helmet

i have seen pics of accidents where the jawbone was ripped off in these

helmets without a proper chin piece so i would rather sweat in a full helmet

than risk that ...........

do not click if you dont want to see some terrible injuries (gruesome ) that happened mainy in areas a full face helmet would probably have saved :

https://www.google.co.th/search?q=face+damage+in+motorcycle+accident&client=firefox-a&hs=TKK&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=ZvEqU_nVKMGkrQe4h4DwCw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=677

Edited March 20, 2014 by speedtripler

[BSJ]

You may be driving less than 40kph but a pick-up truck traveling at over 100kph could T-Bone you or hit you from behind or front on. Accidents happen when they are not expected. That's why they are accidents. I bless my Alpinestars SMX PLUS boots everyday because once when I was tuning my bike my foot slipped into the dyno rollers when it was doing over 100kph. Didn't feel a thing, but if I had ordinary shoes or flip flops on I could have easily lost my foot or faced a 500,000.00 Baht hospital bill. Too much protection is never enough. God Bless.

Maybe you could explain more. The dyno roller only slightly protrudes. I don't see how you foot could go in between the roller and tyre???

[ATF]

i dont believe in 1/2 or 3/4 helmets

its got to be minimum dot rated or snell and a fully constructed helmet

i have seen pics of accidents where the jawbone was ripped off in these

helmets without a proper chin piece so i would rather sweat in a full helmet

than risk that ...........

A Moto Cross helmet is a full helmet without a visor and well suited to scooter speeds. Snell was introduced in 2010 and is superior to DOT.

[ATF]

You may be driving less than 40kph but a pick-up truck traveling at over 100kph could T-Bone you or hit you from behind or front on. Accidents happen when they are not expected. That's why they are accidents. I bless my Alpinestars SMX PLUS boots everyday because once when I was tuning my bike my foot slipped into the dyno rollers when it was doing over 100kph. Didn't feel a thing, but if I had ordinary shoes or flip flops on I could have easily lost my foot or faced a 500,000.00 Baht hospital bill. Too much protection is never enough. God Bless.

Maybe you could explain more. The dyno roller only slightly protrudes. I don't see how you foot could go in between the roller and tyre???

CropperCapture58.jpg

The dyno was a car type dyno with two rollers per wheel which can be used for bikes or cars.

[RubberSideDown]

^^^^^^

I find it kind of ironic, Andre, that you feel your own point-of-view is being misinterpreted by me, and yet you go on and do the same thing to mine- I never said a helmet will save you in any situation.

As I said, I don't care what you do in the sense that I fully agree it's your own choice- I think it's a foolish choice, and I stand by that. You entered this thread with a ridiculous comment re: preferring death to brain injury- while I share the preference, you implied that a proper full-face helmet could be the contributing cause to that possible injury, where no helmet at all would have sent you to your demise- that was complete nonsense- while there may be a statistical probability of that scenario occurring, the likelihood of you fully recovering from a blow to the head while wearing a full-face helmet is much greater than it being the reason you're incapacitated rather than dead- on the other hand, a mild blow that would leave you with a headache or concussion with a decent helmet (which is actually the type of hit to the head you'd probably experience in the average bike accident) is way more likely to cause permanent injury to a helmet-less rider.

A helmet is hardly a 'savior', and I haven't espoused it as such- it's an absolutely essential tool for increasing your chances of survival, but it's no guarantee. Recommending a good one to a new rider is the right thing to do- I personally was never told (nor have I ever said) that a helmet will save you from 'all and everything' (though it very well might save your life).

I always recommend advanced rider training, and I've availed myself of it whenever possible- excellent skills can keep you out of harm's way- those skills coupled with proper gear will serve you better than those skills alone.

I choose to gear-up precisely because I'm NOT over-confident, and I have a realistic view of what awaits me on the road in LOS (and elsewhere).

I don't share your fatalistic 'when your number is up, it's up' view- I believe we make our own luck through preparation when it comes to motorcycles.

That said, I hope your luck holds out, the same way I hope it holds out for every helmet-less rider I see (while I silently judge them, of course;)).

I hate- HATE- seeing someone lying in the road with a head injury (we all do), and in 13 years in LOS I've seen it a lot- it's even worse when it could have been lessened or prevented entirely by a decent helmet- these people were usually on scooters riding at a relatively low speed- on a bigger bike where you're probably riding faster with the normal flow of traffic, the potential for harm is that much greater. To me, a good helmet is the cheapest insurance you'll ever buy.

Edited March 20, 2014 by RubberSideDown

[andreandre]

^^^^^^

I find it kind of ironic, Andre, that you feel your own point-of-view is being misinterpreted by me, and yet you go on and do the same thing to mine- I never said a helmet will save you in any situation.

As I said, I don't care what you do in the sense that I fully agree it's your own choice- I think it's a foolish choice, and I stand by that. You entered this thread with a ridiculous comment re: preferring death to brain injury- while I share the preference, you implied that a proper full-face helmet could be the contributing cause to that possible injury, where no helmet at all would have sent you to your demise- that was complete nonsense- while there may be a statistical probability of that scenario occurring, the likelihood of you fully recovering from a blow to the head while wearing a full-face helmet is much greater than it being the reason you're incapacitated rather than dead- on the other hand, a mild blow that would leave you with a headache or concussion with a decent helmet (which is actually the type of hit to the head you'd probably experience in the average bike accident) is way more likely to cause permanent injury to a helmet-less rider.

A helmet is hardly a 'savior', and I haven't espoused it as such- it's an absolutely essential tool for increasing your chances of survival, but it's no guarantee. Recommending a good one to a new rider is the right thing to do- I personally was never told (nor have I ever said) that a helmet will save you from 'all and everything' (though it very well might save your life).

I always recommend advanced rider training, and I've availed myself of it whenever possible- excellent skills can keep you out of harm's way- those skills coupled with proper gear will serve you better than those skills alone.

I choose to gear-up precisely because I'm NOT over-confident, and I have a realistic view of what awaits me on the road in LOS (and elsewhere).

I don't share your fatalistic 'when your number is up, it's up' view- I believe we make our own luck through preparation when it comes to motorcycles.

That said, I hope your luck holds out, the same way I hope it holds out for every helmet-less rider I see (while I silently judge them, of course;)).

I hate- HATE- seeing someone lying in the road with a head injury (we all do), and in 13 years in LOS I've seen it a lot- it's even worse when it could have been lessened or prevented entirely by a decent helmet- these people were usually on scooters riding at a relatively low speed- on a bigger bike where you're probably riding faster with the normal flow of traffic, the potential for harm is that much greater. To me, a good helmet is the cheapest insurance you'll ever buy.

That said, I hope your luck holds out, the same way I hope it holds out for every helmet-less rider I see (while I silently judge them, of course;)).

Thats very kind of you. same to you and all bikers...but when you have ridden as much as i have you will begin to appreciate a bit more that luck does play a large part in surviving each and every ride regardless of choice of helmet/sans helmet.... the point that you dont share my ''fatalistic' POV ie when your numbers up its up is also fair enough, but again given time you may well look back on that and realise that maybe it is a truism..simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time..a crash or even death which would not have occurred if you had not been there at that place at that precise moment. IMO thats fate, not as you say..;own luck through preparation"

Edited March 21, 2014 by andreandre

[RubberSideDown]

^

There's a difference between 'surviving every ride' and surviving (or lessening the severity of) a crash- though it might never happen, a smart rider prepares for that possibility, and that's what I mean by preparation. Except in very rare cases, if you spend enough time on two wheels, you'll meet the pavement sooner or later.

Also, there are a lot of riders on this forum that have ridden quite a bit- you may be older than me and might have ridden more, but I've got my share of miles on the road, including many years where a bike was my only mode of transportation- the 'when you have ridden as much as I have' line really doesn't buy you anything in terms of knowledge or credibility, nor does it make your view any more valid or relevant purely on that basis.

I'd think a rider claiming so much experience would have a better realization of the importance of decent gear- I've known several people who died on their bikes (mostly here in LOS- if you've ridden a lot you must have lost friends as well) where their lack of gear was an obvious contributing cause (relatively low-speed crashes resulting in head injuries due to lack of a helmet- one guy was in a coma for months and his family was financially decimated with medical bills before he passed away, and a decent helmet could have seen him still around today- was his 'number up' in the sense that nothing could have prevented his death? Obviously not...) - they died unnecessarily, and that's a 'truism' that I take to heart. I may go out on my bike, but it won't be because I didn't at least try to do my best to avoid it through preparation.

Edited March 21, 2014 by RubberSideDown

[BBJ]

^

You don't realize that there's actually a big difference between a 'full-face helmet' (which incorporates the entire range of that type of helmet) and a 'racing helmet', which is a specific niche of small, light, and usually quite noisy helmets meant specifically for the track and made for maximum efficiency when worn in a full-tuck, and lacking most creature-comforts seen in more street-oriented helmets, and is generally meant to be worn for an hour or less at a time (though some people use them as their regular street helmet)- an example would be the Shoei X-12.

Helmets like the popular Shoei RF line or new GT-Air are geared specifically to offer a full field of vision, excellent venting, and other features to make it comfortable for all-day touring, and the nature of its shell shape makes it a poor choice for racing- they can, in fact, be worn in LOS quite comfortably, and offer about the best impact protection you can get in a helmet.

Not according to sharp http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/testhelmetlist?sharp-make=133&sharp-model=GT+Air+&sharp-type=All&sharp-rating=1&discontinued=1

AGV, BELL and Caberg, HJC and Shark come out top as far as impact protection is concerned and half the price of Shoei in some cases. Shoei, Arai and Shubert are nowehere to be seen. Not saying they aren't good, I have a Shoei and Nexx XR1R, but I wouldn't bu y another.

OP, if you're looking for a helmet based of safety look at HJC etc. If you want styling, graphics and brand the passes regulations then look at Shoei etc.

The priority is to make sure the helmet fits properly. A top rated but poorly fitted helmet is no good. Wear it in the shop for a good 15mins plus if you can to make sure it is comfortable and make sure it does't move from side to side or tips front to back too much.

[RubberSideDown]

Kind of strange results- the left side of the helmet is rated as good, but the identical right side is rated as poor, which is what brought the rating to 3-stars (the internal visor probably cost it a bit in the ratings as well)- in any case, I think I'll stick with it as I've read nothing but good reviews (except for some people that found it noisy, but air-flow and noise usually go together) and it fits me perfectly (as a Shoei 'L' has always done for me- it's made for my head-shape)- I didn't buy it for the graphics, but for the protection and air-flow (and the fact it's set up for a Bluetooth headset)- it did get 5-stars from WebBikeWorld.

As far as the Nexx goes, I've read many poor reviews for quality and wouldn't buy one either- Shark also isn't up there in quality compared to Shoei or Arai based on user reviews I've read.

Note the Shoei RF-1100 (same as the XR-1100) does receive 5-stars, and it's going for less than $400- I'd buy it over any of the other brands you mentioned.

Regardless, a rated helmet by any decent brand (Shoei, Shark, Arai, etc) will go a long way towards fulfilling its purpose.

Edited March 22, 2014 by RubberSideDown

[AllanB]

This will throw the cat among the pigeons. Can`t say I am totally in agreement with the findings, but I`m not an expert either.

Wednesday, 05, Mar 2014 02:55

by David Weston

A study published in The Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery by a group of Brazilian researchers has concluded that an open-face helmet gives almost as little protection against facial injuries and brain trauma as not wearing a helmet at all.

The study looked at 253 motorcyclists who were victims of road incidents and suffered head and face injuries. They were all referred to outpatient treatment.

Of the motorists in the research, 156 patients did not wear a helmet, 51 wore open-face helmets and 46 people wore full-face helmets (despite the law in Brazil requiring motorcycle users to wear a form of protection).

The study found open-face helmets offered little protection against brain injury. Of the 156 riders without helmets, 108 suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI). That equates to 69.2% of patients.

Shockingly, 39 out of the 51 patients who wore an open-face helmet also suffered a brain injury. This is a mammoth 76.5% of people in the study, suggesting little or no difference between wearing an open-face helmet and nothing at all.

By comparison, only 24 of 46 (52.2%) of motorcyclists with a full-face helmet received a TBI.

A TBI is "defined as any period of loss of consciousness, any loss of memory for events immediately before or after the accident, any alteration in mental state at the time of the accident, or focal neurologic deficits".

The study divided the head into three horizontal sections, the mandible (jaw), the midface and the upper face and looked at the severity of injury and lacerations to the face.

Open-face helmets only offered protection to the upper face compared to riders with no helmet. The report found: "25 of 156 patients (16%) without crash helmets had fractures to the upper face compared with 2 of 51 patients (3.9%) with open-face helmets and 1 of 46 patients (2.2%) with full-face helmets."

If both TBI and facial injuries were combined, the results of the study were similar.

Protection Number Suffered facial fracture

With TBI (%)

No helmet 156 98 (62.82)

Full-face helmet 46 16 (34.78)

Open-face helmet 51 35 (68.83)

As the table shows, the percentage of riders who suffered both facial lacerations and brain injury while wearing an open-face helmet is similar to the number of people who were not wearing a helmet at all.

The study concluded:

"This evidence supports the idea that the open-face helmets offer little or no protection against TBI, probably because the structure of the helmet does not absorb enough energy from the impact; thus the energy is dissipated directly onto the face.

"In the present study population, full-face helmets offered more protection than open-face helmets, and motorcyclists wearing open-face helmets and unhelmeted riders had more severe facial injuries.

"In conclusion, the use of full-face helmets to prevent or decrease craniomaxillofacial injuries is recommended."

I am in no doubt that in a crash at ANY speed that a full face helmet will offer more protection than an open face helmet. Having had accidents on push bikes in the past I would suggest that their value is greater at higher speeds. The reason being, all my accidents ranging from 10-30kph injuries have been restricted to hand and leg damage and one bump on the back of my head. This is because at low speeds you have time to react, put you hands down, indeed a friend of mine who was a gymnast, when a car pulled out in front of him, somersaulted over the bonnet of a car and landed on his feet.

The question is whether the lowering of the senses as a result of wearing a full face helmet, which would raise the chances of an accident in a busy town, is offset by the additional safety the helmet would offer. I think not, it is better to avoid the accident in the first place, but there are no statistics to show any of that, nor could there be.

As for the freak accident, being hit by a truck doing 100kph, it is complete nonsense as far as this discussion is concerned. Besides if I was T boned by a truck doing 100kph, I would prefer to be wearing no helmet and have a quick death.

Why do they approve and sell open faced helmets if they are not safe? I would suggest that worldwide there are more open faced helmets sold than full face.

Edited March 22, 2014 by AllanB

[pokerkid]

i dont believe in 1/2 or 3/4 helmets

its got to be minimum dot rated or snell and a fully constructed helmet

i have seen pics of accidents where the jawbone was ripped off in these

helmets without a proper chin piece so i would rather sweat in a full helmet

than risk that ...........

A Moto Cross helmet is a full helmet without a visor and well suited to scooter speeds. Snell was introduced in 2010 and is superior to DOT.

please do explain to us with evidence how Snell is superior to Dot.

maybe superior in giving users diffuse brain injuries....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/automobiles/27SNELL.html?_r=1&

[andreandre]

This will throw the cat among the pigeons. Can`t say I am totally in agreement with the findings, but I`m not an expert either.

Wednesday, 05, Mar 2014 02:55

by David Weston

A study published in The Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery by a group of Brazilian researchers has concluded that an open-face helmet gives almost as little protection against facial injuries and brain trauma as not wearing a helmet at all.

The study looked at 253 motorcyclists who were victims of road incidents and suffered head and face injuries. They were all referred to outpatient treatment.

Of the motorists in the research, 156 patients did not wear a helmet, 51 wore open-face helmets and 46 people wore full-face helmets (despite the law in Brazil requiring motorcycle users to wear a form of protection).

The study found open-face helmets offered little protection against brain injury. Of the 156 riders without helmets, 108 suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI). That equates to 69.2% of patients.

Shockingly, 39 out of the 51 patients who wore an open-face helmet also suffered a brain injury. This is a mammoth 76.5% of people in the study, suggesting little or no difference between wearing an open-face helmet and nothing at all.

By comparison, only 24 of 46 (52.2%) of motorcyclists with a full-face helmet received a TBI.

A TBI is "defined as any period of loss of consciousness, any loss of memory for events immediately before or after the accident, any alteration in mental state at the time of the accident, or focal neurologic deficits".

The study divided the head into three horizontal sections, the mandible (jaw), the midface and the upper face and looked at the severity of injury and lacerations to the face.

Open-face helmets only offered protection to the upper face compared to riders with no helmet. The report found: "25 of 156 patients (16%) without crash helmets had fractures to the upper face compared with 2 of 51 patients (3.9%) with open-face helmets and 1 of 46 patients (2.2%) with full-face helmets."

If both TBI and facial injuries were combined, the results of the study were similar.

Protection Number Suffered facial fracture

With TBI (%)

No helmet 156 98 (62.82)

Full-face helmet 46 16 (34.78)

Open-face helmet 51 35 (68.83)

As the table shows, the percentage of riders who suffered both facial lacerations and brain injury while wearing an open-face helmet is similar to the number of people who were not wearing a helmet at all.

The study concluded:

"This evidence supports the idea that the open-face helmets offer little or no protection against TBI, probably because the structure of the helmet does not absorb enough energy from the impact; thus the energy is dissipated directly onto the face.

"In the present study population, full-face helmets offered more protection than open-face helmets, and motorcyclists wearing open-face helmets and unhelmeted riders had more severe facial injuries.

"In conclusion, the use of full-face helmets to prevent or decrease craniomaxillofacial injuries is recommended."

I am in no doubt that in a crash at ANY speed that a full face helmet will offer more protection than an open face helmet. Having had accidents on push bikes in the past I would suggest that their value is greater at higher speeds. The reason being, all my accidents ranging from 10-30kph injuries have been restricted to hand and leg damage and one bump on the back of my head. This is because at low speeds you have time to react, put you hands down, indeed a friend of mine who was a gymnast, when a car pulled out in front of him, somersaulted over the bonnet of a car and landed on his feet.

The question is whether the lowering of the senses as a result of wearing a full face helmet, which would raise the chances of an accident in a busy town, is offset by the additional safety the helmet would offer. I think not, it is better to avoid the accident in the first place, but there are no statistics to show any of that, nor could there be.

As for the freak accident, being hit by a truck doing 100kph, it is complete nonsense as far as this discussion is concerned. Besides if I was T boned by a truck doing 100kph, I would prefer to be wearing no helmet and have a quick death.

Why do they approve and sell open faced helmets if they are not safe? I would suggest that worldwide there are more open faced helmets sold than full face.

+1

[andreandre]

^

There's a difference between 'surviving every ride' and surviving (or lessening the severity of) a crash- though it might never happen, a smart rider prepares for that possibility, and that's what I mean by preparation. Except in very rare cases, if you spend enough time on two wheels, you'll meet the pavement sooner or later.

Also, there are a lot of riders on this forum that have ridden quite a bit- you may be older than me and might have ridden more, but I've got my share of miles on the road, including many years where a bike was my only mode of transportation- the 'when you have ridden as much as I have' line really doesn't buy you anything in terms of knowledge or credibility, nor does it make your view any more valid or relevant purely on that basis.

I'd think a rider claiming so much experience would have a better realization of the importance of decent gear- I've known several people who died on their bikes (mostly here in LOS- if you've ridden a lot you must have lost friends as well) where their lack of gear was an obvious contributing cause (relatively low-speed crashes resulting in head injuries due to lack of a helmet- one guy was in a coma for months and his family was financially decimated with medical bills before he passed away, and a decent helmet could have seen him still around today- was his 'number up' in the sense that nothing could have prevented his death? Obviously not...) - they died unnecessarily, and that's a 'truism' that I take to heart. I may go out on my bike, but it won't be because I didn't at least try to do my best to avoid it through preparation.

Mate, lighten up in life..you are obviously very paranoid...

You have filled your mind with worry..do you wear your helmet to bed?

People fall out of bed and die too you know..

The day the big truck runs the red light and takes you out, your full face is going to be no more use to you than an open face or even no helmet would be..

[RubberSideDown]

The question is whether the lowering of the senses as a result of wearing a full face helmet, which would raise the chances of an accident in a busy town, is offset by the additional safety the helmet would offer. I think not, it is better to avoid the accident in the first place, but there are no statistics to show any of that, nor could there be.

I already posted the statistics regarding that very question in this thread, and mentioned them to you in another post, where any losses of vision were easily compensated for and were more than offset by the added protection (hearing was basically unaffected):

Do Motorcycle Helmets Interfere With the Vision and Hearing of Riders?

http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Communication%20&%20Consumer%20Information/Studies%20&%20Reports/Associated%20Files/tt127.pdf

Edited March 22, 2014 by RubberSideDown

[RubberSideDown]

^

There's a difference between 'surviving every ride' and surviving (or lessening the severity of) a crash- though it might never happen, a smart rider prepares for that possibility, and that's what I mean by preparation. Except in very rare cases, if you spend enough time on two wheels, you'll meet the pavement sooner or later.

Also, there are a lot of riders on this forum that have ridden quite a bit- you may be older than me and might have ridden more, but I've got my share of miles on the road, including many years where a bike was my only mode of transportation- the 'when you have ridden as much as I have' line really doesn't buy you anything in terms of knowledge or credibility, nor does it make your view any more valid or relevant purely on that basis.

I'd think a rider claiming so much experience would have a better realization of the importance of decent gear- I've known several people who died on their bikes (mostly here in LOS- if you've ridden a lot you must have lost friends as well) where their lack of gear was an obvious contributing cause (relatively low-speed crashes resulting in head injuries due to lack of a helmet- one guy was in a coma for months and his family was financially decimated with medical bills before he passed away, and a decent helmet could have seen him still around today- was his 'number up' in the sense that nothing could have prevented his death? Obviously not...) - they died unnecessarily, and that's a 'truism' that I take to heart. I may go out on my bike, but it won't be because I didn't at least try to do my best to avoid it through preparation.

Mate, lighten up in life..you are obviously very paranoid...

You have filled your mind with worry..do you wear your helmet to bed?

People fall out of bed and die too you know..

The day the big truck runs the red light and takes you out, your full face is going to be no more use to you than an open face or even no helmet would be..

If that's the best you can come up with, Andre, your argument is pretty much done.

Yes, taking precautions for the very real and not uncommon possibility of a motorcycle accident equates to concern over falling out of bed- well done, straw man- there's nothing like listening to the voice of 'experience'.

There are dozens of members here who can relate personal experiences of motorcycle accidents- I would imagine there are fewer that have had falling-out-of-bed mishaps, at least not since they were toddlers...

Mutual sarcasm aside, we are each irrevocably married to our positions.

I have filled my mind with road-craft and knowledge over the 25 years I've been on two wheels, and have learned from both my mistakes and those made by others- you seem to be more interested in living up to a stereotype than anything else, but, like with most things, it's your choice- I don't particularly respect it, but I agree it's your life- when it comes to posting on this board, I'll continue to hold onto my position that gearing up properly is a necessary aspect of being a good rider, and I'll argue the point with you or anybody else.

I won't, however, be wearing a helmet to bed, but if I fall out of mine tonight and injure my head, I will indeed post tomorrow that you had a valid point (if I survive it, of course).

Edited March 22, 2014 by RubberSideDown

[RubberSideDown]

^^^

And re: that helmet test, the data is from 1996- the field-of-view of a rated helmet has increased since then due to stronger materials allowing the open area to be larger without compromising impact protection.

[AllanB]

The question is whether the lowering of the senses as a result of wearing a full face helmet, which would raise the chances of an accident in a busy town, is offset by the additional safety the helmet would offer. I think not, it is better to avoid the accident in the first place, but there are no statistics to show any of that, nor could there be.

I already posted the statistics regarding that very question in this thread, and mentioned them to you in another post, where any losses of vision were easily compensated for and were more than offset by the added protection (hearing was basically unaffected):

Do Motorcycle Helmets Interfere With the Vision and Hearing of Riders?

http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Communication%20&%20Consumer%20Information/Studies%20&%20Reports/Associated%20Files/tt127.pdf

This test has almost no validity in the real word, first of all it was a very small selective sample and all the participants knew they were being tested and were alerted and prepared for something related to the subject matter. In the real world accidents happen when you don't expect them and seeing some idiot out of the corner of your eyes.

In the test they stated that "most of the riders recovered their lateral field of view of vision by moving their heads", but then go on to conclude that "the use of a helmet did not hamper their ability to see traffic".

1. How can you draw that conclusion when it is admitted they all lost some lateral vision, since they had to compensate for the loss, and indeed 4 people were unable to compensate at all?

2. Could it be that the four who did not react, were wearing full face helmets, we are no told?

It seems to me that the people who set up this test wanted a particular result and used selective parts of the results to attempt to prove it. The motive:- To get people who weren't wearing helmets, using loss of senses as an excuse, to wear them. In which case such a test has no validity at all, it is merely a "sexed up dossier".

Furthermore, how you can you compensate for the loss of peripheral vision, if you don't see it you don't see it. Unless, of course the people conducting the test tell you it is there. So in that case..the test is compete nonsense.

Sometimes it is necessary to look a bit further than an experiment, or a set of statistics. "Lies, dam lies and statistics".

Edited March 22, 2014 by AllanB

[RubberSideDown]

Right, Allan- first there are no statistics (there are), then there could be no statistics (there can), and then, as they don't jibe with your assumptions based on no real-world experience of your own, they can't possibly be valid (and yet, the people on this board who actually wear full-face helmets would agree with the test findings).

You are also ignoring the fact that the field-of-view of helmets has improved in the 18 years since the test was done.

Sometimes, Allan, it's necessary to realize that the people who have actually ridden in the real world in various scenarios know what they're talking about, and that perhaps you need to look beyond your preconceptions.

I can barely see the edge of my RF-1100 unless I force my eyes to the side (I cannot see it in the periphery of my vision at all)- wearing a helmet or not, I would turn my head slightly before doing that- I have never once experienced a situation where my helmet caused a narrowing of my field-of-vision.

Go out a buy a high-quality helmet, use it for a while, and then come back with a valid opinion, as nothing else could possibly be relevant to you, otherwise (unless you are willing to give credence to any other type of evidence besides your own opinion or single anecdotal experience of used a borrowed helmet of unknown brand or rating) you will always be reduced to a contrary position based on nothing.

Edited March 22, 2014 by RubberSideDown