Helmet Safety Study from Wisconsin Mar 2018 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Helmet Safety Study from Wisconsin Mar 2018

GreyGhost

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Cool. Interesting that spinal injuries are lower with helmets. I wonder if that is related to the cushioning or the sliding? Increased risk of spinal injury has long been one of the anti-helmet arguments, but I don't expect a scientific study to change most peoples beliefs.

My link is likely a website that stole the content from elsewhere.

http://www.infosurhoy.com/cocoon/sa...vical-spine-injury-during-motorcycle-crashes/

Helmet use associated with reduced risk of cervical spine injury during motorcycle crashes 0
BY TOBY MURPHY ON MARCH 7, 2018 SCIENCE

IMAGE: This is a bar graph showing the characterization and distribution of cervical spine injuries in helmeted & unhelmeted riders after motorcycle crashes.

Copyright 2018 American Association of Neurological Surgeons
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (MARCH 6, 2016). Despite claims that helmets do not protect the cervical spine during a motorcycle crash and may even increase the risk of injury, researchers from the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics in Madison found that, during an accident, helmet use lowers the likelihood of cervical spine injury (CSI), particularly fractures of the cervical vertebrae. These findings appear in a new article published today in the Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine: “Motorcycle helmets and cervical spine injuries: a 5-year experience at a Level 1 trauma center” written by Paul S. Page, MD, Zhikui Wei, MD, PhD, and Nathaniel P. Brooks, MD.

In Europe you’re unlikely to find someone riding a motorcycle without a helmet; universal laws requiring motorcycle helmet use are applied throughout the European Union. In the United States, on the other hand, laws on helmet use vary from state to state, with some states requiring helmet use for all riders and others limiting the requirement to persons under the age of 18.

According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates, wearing helmets saved the lives of 1859 motorcycle riders in 2016; an additional 802 lives could have been saved if every motorcyclist had worn them. Wearing a helmet decreases the incidence and severity of traumatic brain injury during crashes. What then are the objections to universal laws requiring motorcycle helmet use?

Major reasons cited for not requiring helmets while riding a motorcycle include freedom of choice, avoiding any limitation on vision, and a perceived increased risk of receiving a cervical spine injury (CSI). This last reason is based on the belief that the added weight of a helmet might increase torque on the cervical spine.

Risk to the cervical spine is addressed in this study. Over the years there have been a variety of studies on helmet use and CSI in motorcycle crashes, with a couple of reports indicating an increased risk of CSI among helmeted riders and most studies finding no protective effect or harmful biomechanical risk to the cervical spine. Page and colleagues hypothesized that helmet use is not associated with an increased risk of CSI during a motorcycle crash and instead may provide some protection to the wearer. In this paper the researchers provide case evidence to support their hypothesis.

The researchers reviewed the charts of 1061 patients who had been injured in motorcycle crashes and treated at a single Level 1 trauma center in Wisconsin between January 1, 2010, and January 1, 2015. Of those patients, 323 (30.4%) were wearing helmets at the time of the crash and 738 (69.6%) were not. (Wisconsin law does not require all riders to wear a helmet.)

At least one CSI was sustained by 7.4% of the riders wearing a helmet and 15.4% of those not wearing one; this difference in percentages is statistically significant (p = 0.001). Cervical spine fractures occurred more often in patients who were not wearing helmets (10.8% compared to 4.6%; p = 0.001), as did ligament injuries (1.9% compared with 0.3%; p = 0.04); again these differences are statistically significant. There were no significant differences between groups (helmeted vs. unhelmeted riders) with respect to other types of cervical spine injuries that were sustained: nerve root injury, cervical strain, or cord contusion.

In summary, Page and colleagues show that helmet use is associated with a significantly reduced likelihood of sustaining a CSI during a motorcycle crash, particularly fractures of the cervical vertebrae.

Although the study population is small, the authors believe the results provide additional evidence in support of wearing helmets to prevent severe injury in motorcycle crashes. When asked about the findings, Dr. Brooks stated, “Our study suggests that wearing a motorcycle helmet is a reasonable way to limit the risk of injury to the cervical spine in a motorcycle crash.”

Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group
 
Last edited:
Geez. Isn't this kinda....obvious?

Here's some antecedent evidence to further enforce the idea that helmets are a great idea!

Bicycle + 20km/h + no helmet + fall = flat-lined, 1 month coma, brain surgery required, loss of low/high frequencies in left ear

Motorcycle + 120km/h + full gear + eject + being an asphalt sliding pro = broken clavicle and hyper extended thumb
 
............but I don't expect a scientific study to change most peoples beliefs..........

The majority of people I see riding without a helmet while in the US are Harley/cruiser riders and lots of these are in jeans and t shirts as well. I don't think this or any study is going to have any influence on their behavior.

This link is a summary of various stats related to US fatalities. Interesting to read distribution of victims by age, helmet use, type of bike, time of day, single vs. multi vehicle accident, use of alcohol etc...

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/motorcycles/fatalityfacts/motorcycles

I see no info on rider experience nor total number of types of bike on the road and this would be good to know as well.
 
A few years ago I did some design and test work for a notable motorcycle apparel company. Most of the work was on materials that enhanced rider comfort, we also looked at safety advantages and disadvantages of leather and technical textiles used on the outside of road wear.

I wish I still had their crash data, at the time I was amazed how much jackets and pants reduced crash injuries. Has anyone seen recent studies on this?
 
The cervical spine is what your head is connected to (i.e. the vertebrae in your neck.) It makes sense to me that the smooth, hard surface of a helmet outer shell is going to be more likely to slide along and glance off obstacles during a slide or collision than to "catching" and impart huge bending moments into the neck like an unprotected melon might.

As well, the helmet shell, EP foam and inner liner all probably reduce longitudinal impact forces (the sort that cause compression fractures) into the spine.


Gotta admire the bravery some folks display in riding these vehicles without protective gear. Or, shake your head at their stupidity...
 
I worked on a project that was studying how materials behaved in crashes and slides. My part as a textile developer was determining the drag coefficient (how far you slide on a given material), abrasion protection (suitable textile construction to adequately survive a crash/slide), and construction limitations for each material.

To make a long story short, leathers slide about 20% further than textiles. This makes leathers safer on a track as contact obstacles are minimized and tumbling is reduced with slippery materials. Textiles are stickier, which reduces slide length, that's an advantage for road wear as contact with obstacles (curbs, poles, fences) is reduced when slide length is reduced.
 
I'm always skeptical about so-called "studies" until I find out who is funding them. I think it's quite obvious that - all things being equal - a rider is better off wearing a helmet. But I don't think these authoritarian nanny-statists understand that if you are truly to have a free society, people must be left to make their own choices without interference from the state. Yes, I know it's more likely to result in more deaths, but if it isn't your life to risk, whose is it?
 
^^^ Agreed. It's pretty easy to have fun with statistics. When if comes to crash outcomes, there is very little impartial data.
 
I don't really care if eleftheria i thanatos types die -- to me it's Darwinism at work -- but I want to be free from having to chip in to care for what's left of you when you become a rutabaga or brain-injured quadriplegic as a result of exercising your freedom.

There are probably lots of people that dislike motorcycles even when riders wear ATGATT because we're still statistically more likely to be injured in ways that burden society. We should consider ourselves lucky that they haven't risen up en masse and called for a ban on the things because they too want to be "free" from such burden.

If it means that much to you guys please just move to the US already.
 
I don't really care if eleftheria i thanatos types die -- to me it's Darwinism at work -- but I want to be free from having to chip in to care for what's left of you when you become a rutabaga or brain-injured quadriplegic as a result of exercising your freedom.

There are probably lots of people that dislike motorcycles even when riders wear ATGATT because we're still statistically more likely to be injured in ways that burden society. We should consider ourselves lucky that they haven't risen up en masse and called for a ban on the things because they too want to be "free" from such burden.

If it means that much to you guys please just move to the US already.

If anyone is concerned about a societal burden on the health care system, all that's necessary is to require helmetless riders to carry extra insurance. That's what they do in Michigan. We could use the societal burden argument for eliminating virtually every freedom in our democracy. But freedom has a price. It has never been free.
 
I don't really care if eleftheria i thanatos types die -- to me it's Darwinism at work -- but I want to be free from having to chip in to care for what's left of you when you become a rutabaga or brain-injured quadriplegic as a result of exercising your freedom.

There are probably lots of people that dislike motorcycles even when riders wear ATGATT because we're still statistically more likely to be injured in ways that burden society. We should consider ourselves lucky that they haven't risen up en masse and called for a ban on the things because they too want to be "free" from such burden.

If it means that much to you guys please just move to the US already.
That's true. The issue with the helmet fight is one of slippery slope... they take part of your freedom away, then creep a little more. Sometimes freedom changes come on like a knife switch, like a seatbelt or helmet law, sometimes they erode away slowly, an example of this is government regulation and industry collaboration on insurance controls.

Once removed, regaining freedoms almost always involves a fight -- they don't come back easily. Personally I would rather have more freedoms and the responsibility that comes with.
 

Back
Top Bottom