http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/atsb174.html
I agree, it's an interesting read. Some stuff in there that challenges conventional wisdom, and lots of other stuff that affirms conventional wisdom.
Could be worse....could be demanding compensation for missing a rugby match.....
Yes,some things you wouldn't expect.... The factors which were associated with significantly increased crash risk after adjustment for potential confounding factors were: 'experienced off-road rider before gaining on-road licence' That doesn't sound right...but the statistics say. These ones too.. there was no significant increase in risk associated with wearing an open face helmet compared to a full face helmet no significant increase in risk associated with wearing a helmet 5 to 10 years old or over 10 years old (compared with one less than 5 years old) no significant increase in risk associated with wearing a helmet that did not belong to the rider Another good one... facial injuries were uncommon and not significantly more common among those wearing open face helmets than full face helmets The main forum would implode if someone mention these things there.
Yeah, that caught my eye too. Maybe there's a nice Davida helmet in my future after all . . . .
The Oxford openface are going real cheap now,worth picking up for an around town helmet now that they are safe.
the report is a few years old and more incompetent drivers are now on the road....fortunately for you most of them seem unable to find their way south of the Bombays..... I wonder is the hi viz vest ( which is post report) is any good....or does it lead to 'target fixation".....try it on the motorway look at a cats eye when changing lane and you'll hit it....... thats why roadkill gets killed.
maybe the open faced helmets are generally used at lower speeds.......
maybe the open faced helmets are generally used at lower speeds....... bushy beards are very absorbent......
and that is just the girls........
Having god for a skate down the road and banged up the chin guard, no way would I be wearing an open face. I wonder if it also has anything to do with open face = scooter riders (usually) so lower speeds, less sliding, etc?
thats what i said without all the words..
Everyone has a story about how their gear saved them - they would be dead or maimed if it wasn't for their jacket/pants/helmet/gloves/St Christopher. In reality it didn't make a huge amount of difference....and no one is prepared to do a double blind test to prove it otherwise. Fortunately I have. There is a poll in the main forum about how many times you've crashed,I'm leading by a long way,and I haven't even said how many I've had....it only goes up to six. Times that by 3 for me would be pretty accurate,so far into the triple digits including off road I suspect a 4th digit might be involved. I haven't done the jandals,shorts and T shirt test,but most other clothing has been crash tested by me. The only gear failure has been a palm worn out of a glove,and the bum worn out of a pair of jeans....but we were on the road for some time to do that. I've never had a day off work from injury from a motorcycle crash,in fact on the times I crashed on the way to work (twice) I carried on so I could fix my bike during lunch time. I am definitely ATGATT,but it's way over rated.
I'm not convinced that matt black helmets are good. I know the high UV in NZ used to destroy these helmets and the typical example I saw once was a guy who went down the road in one. The shell shattered and he was left with the inner padding which didn't save his life. I assume the helmet manufacturers have addressed this now but I keep to a light colour. The T shirt and jandals riders are the ones who are putting up our bike rego with avoidable skin grafts and surgery. Thankfully most of my crashing has been off road and I've got very good at it.
I can see it now: a runaway best seller titled "The Art Of Crashing" by UNNA & Motu . . . .
