Protective gear efficiency study article

[S21FOLGORE]

Interesting to read. Probably people who are skeptical about ATGATT, people who just started getting into motorcycling and wondering if they really need to spend that much money on protective gear, should read.

http://www.defense.gov/home/pdf/0412_militaryrider/DYK_USMC2.pdf


http://www.georgeinstitute.org/sites/default/files/documents/motorcycle-protective-clothing-protection-from-injury-or-just-the-weather-the-gear-study.pdf

[lightspd]

Interesting, based on those studies, I should remove the back insert in my Joe Rocket jacket.

[1.21GW]

Interesting.  They focused on low-impact crashes, because that is where you (would theoretically) see the most impact from wearing/not-wearing gear.

What makes this study different is that it did not look only at crashes reported through the police and emergency services, which tend to be the most serious, but instead sought out referrals to individuals through motorcycle repair shops based on repairs to bikes that were dropped or otherwise damaged in an accident. This led to interviewing the riders who crashed and did enough damage to their bike to warrant repairs, but did not do enough damage to their person to warrant a hospital stay or burial. The results show how different types of PPE worked, and whether the PPE sustained damage or failed in the crash. This is especially important because the value of PPE is realized to a much greater extent in lower energy crashes that do not result in death. Higher energy crashes on the other hand impose forces on the body and internal organs that are not substantively mitigated by PPE. This study also does not address helmets, which are already well proven in reducing head injuries, and subject to more proven standards of design and testing.

[S21FOLGORE]

Interesting, based on those studies, I should remove the back insert in my Joe Rocket jacket.

I find it interesting, too. (Also, a bit confusing.)
One thing you need to be aware is that "insert" type back protectors varies in terms of quality (effectiveness, should I say?).
Some of the back insert on the jacket are, nothing more than just a piece of foam.
I doesn't surprise me if poorly engineered  foam back insert caused more "soft tissue injury" (bruises)

Does Joe Rocket provides the test data about the armor they put in their jacket ?

EG.
http://www.forcefieldbodyarmour.com/product/pro-back-inserts/2361
(click on to  "official CE test result"

http://www.aerostich.com/roadcrafter-protection

[Triple J]

Interesting study, but I don't entirely buy it.

While I think gear with armor/padding is important, I don't believe that non-armored motorcycle gear is no more affective than a street jacket and jeans. I'm guessing this conclusion is a function of only looking at certain types of injuries or crashes.

For instance, you can slide down the road in jeans and a fashion leather jacket...or you can slide down the road in Vanson leather pants and jacket (no armor). There in no friggin' way that the former provides just as much protection against abrasion (i.e., road rash). No way. Agreed though that neither has a benefit for impact related injuries.

Same goes for the back pad. I just don't see how wearing one make you more prone to injuries. Back protectors are definitely not all equal...but anything covering your spine is better than nothing.

[lightspd]

I find it interesting, too. (Also, a bit confusing.)
One thing you need to be aware is that "insert" type back protectors varies in terms of quality (effectiveness, should I say?).
Some of the back insert on the jacket are, nothing more than just a piece of foam.
I doesn't surprise me if poorly engineered  foam back insert caused more "soft tissue injury" (bruises)

Does Joe Rocket provides the test data about the armor they put in their jacket ?

EG.
http://www.forcefieldbodyarmour.com/product/pro-back-inserts/2361
(click on to  "official CE test result"

http://www.aerostich.com/roadcrafter-protection

The armor it comes with is just the cheap foam, but you can purchase the upgraded CE armor. Which I did before you couldn't find it anymore. To answer your question, no I don't see any test data on it.

Joe rocket CE Armor

The first article notes "PPE that meet the Euro Standard both for abrasion
resistance and for body armor" so I assumed it was the decent stuff and not the cheap stuff.

[lightspd]

Interesting study, but I don't entirely buy it.

While I think gear with armor/padding is important, I don't believe that non-armored motorcycle gear is no more affective than a street jacket and jeans. I'm guessing this conclusion is a function of only looking at certain types of injuries or crashes.

For instance, you can slide down the road in jeans and a fashion leather jacket...or you can slide down the road in Vanson leather pants and jacket (no armor). There in no friggin' way that the former provides just as much protection against abrasion (i.e., road rash). No way. Agreed though that neither has a benefit for impact related injuries.

Same goes for the back pad. I just don't see how wearing one make you more prone to injuries. Back protectors are definitely not all equal...but anything covering your spine is better than nothing.

Comparing the 2 reports.  The first one is the only one that really makes the claim there is not difference.

" non-armored motorcycle-specific clothing does not give significantly
more protection than clothing that is not designed for motorcycle use"

Looking at the % on the .org report, you can see a difference.  It should be noted though, the 2 reports looked at 2 different groups. The first one used motorcycle repair shops to find people, the second use accident reports, from what I can tell.

Edit: Actually the second report used multiple sources,  "The
212 participants included 126 (59.4%) identified from hospital presentations, 75 (35.4%) from
crash repair services and 9 self-referred (4.2%)."

[1.21GW]

Interesting study, but I don't entirely buy it.

While I think gear with armor/padding is important, I don't believe that non-armored motorcycle gear is no more affective than a street jacket and jeans. I'm guessing this conclusion is a function of only looking at certain types of injuries or crashes.

For instance, you can slide down the road in jeans and a fashion leather jacket...or you can slide down the road in Vanson leather pants and jacket (no armor). There in no friggin' way that the former provides just as much protection against abrasion (i.e., road rash). No way. Agreed though that neither has a benefit for impact related injuries.

Same goes for the back pad. I just don't see how wearing one make you more prone to injuries. Back protectors are definitely not all equal...but anything covering your spine is better than nothing.

I agree with you, but I also don't want to discount actual scientific research and data.  I do think there may be a selection bias in some of this, which could explain the points you make.  For example, it may be that people that tend to use back protectors tend to be more aggressive riders or tend to favor sport bikes (i.e. different riding position) or something, and whatever that something is increases the level of danger and degree of injury when they go down.  Thus, those without back protectors may have more positive injury results in the study, but that would not be attributable to the back protector but rather to riding style, riding position, types of accidents, etc.

Anyway, I'm at least glad that there are more of the studies coming out.  So much gear marketing is imaginary, meaning that companies come up with what they think would reduce injury and pitch that as the key features to their gear.  But there really doesn't seem to be a robust data set to confirm any of it---just anecdotal evidence.  "Double stitching"?  Well, that sounds better than single stitching, let's put that in.  "Molecule impact expansion"?  Well, that sounds like it would help spread out and reduce total impact force, so sure, let's put that in.

[lightspd]

I agree with you, but I also don't want to discount actual scientific research and data.  I do think there may be a selection bias in some of this, which could explain the points you make.  For example, it may be that people that tend to use back protectors tend to be more aggressive riders or tend to favor sport bikes (i.e. different riding position) or something, and whatever that something is increases the level of danger and degree of injury when they go down.  Thus, those without back protectors may have more positive injury results in the study, but that would not be attributable to the back protector but rather to riding style, riding position, types of accidents, etc.

Anyway, I'm at least glad that there are more of the studies coming out.  So much gear marketing is imaginary, meaning that companies come up with what they think would reduce injury and pitch that as the key features to their gear.  But there really doesn't seem to be a robust data set to confirm any of it---just anecdotal evidence.  "Double stitching"?  Well, that sounds better than single stitching, let's put that in.  "Molecule impact expansion"?  Well, that sounds like it would help spread out and reduce total impact force, so sure, let's put that in.

 I wouldn't count the first linked USMC report scientific, at least not without seeing raw data.  I think the second report is much better.

Like you pointed out though, there are several factors that could effect it: type, fit, how secure, etc.  Looking at the data from the second study, back armor decreases injury, while foam insert increases it. So it could be said, get true back armor or nothing and skip the foam.  Armor in other clothes also seems to increase internal injury, but as you said maybe people who use armor driver faster and more reckless.

[1.21GW]

I wouldn't count the first linked USMC report scientific, at least not without seeing raw data.  I think the second report is much better.

To be clear: both articles point to the same study ("the deRome study").  Perhaps you are confusing the reference in the USMC article to some orchestrated crash in a movie called "Semper Ride" with the actual study.

[lightspd]

To be clear: both articles point to the same study ("the deRome study").  Perhaps you are confusing the reference in the USMC article to some orchestrated crash in a movie called "Semper Ride" with the actual study.

Ah, thank you, I was indeed thinking they were two separate studies and the one was a USMC produced study. Knowing that now, I do question how the USMC author presented the results.

[koko64]

I crashed at 130 at the track last year. Glad I had armour and not just a slice of foam over my spine. Major brands do testing and R&D via racing which has got to count for something.

[Howie]

Interesting, based on those studies, I should remove the back insert in my Joe Rocket jacket.

If I am reading correctly, they are referring to the useless foam inserts, not back protectors.

[S21FOLGORE]

About the foam back insert / back protector, you have to read carefully at the bottom of page 7 and table 3,
THEN at the end of the page 9.

What you need to remember about back protection is that the most scary type of damage is the spinal cord injury, which, the back protectors on the today’s market will not help you. (Spinal cord injury happens because of overextension, quick and violent twisting and bending to your spine. )
That said, I never ride without one.

What part of your body are most at risk in a crash ?
What do you think?

Take a look at this link,


http://www.roadsafety.mccofnsw.org.au/a/91.html

then go to this link and read the article

https://rideapart.com/articles/body-parts-will-likely-injure-motorcycle-crash

The simple fact is, leg protection is kinda PITA to wear EVERY SINGLE TIME  you get on a bike.
That’s why it is often neglected.
That’s why (I think) Roadcrafter one piece suit is great. (You can not skip lower body protection.)

[Triple J]

(Spinal cord injury happens because of overextension, quick and violent twisting and bending to your spine. )

Spinal cord injury can also happen from impact, so back protectors have their place. There's a reason why no race organization anywhere will let you race without one.

I agree though...they won't do anything from twisting and such.  The only thing that can help with that are the Leatt devices, but then it only helps with the neck.

Agreed on leg protection as well. I never ride without my Darien pants with padding.